IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5282 OF 2010 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6205 OF 2010 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5282 OF 2010 Between: Parana Farook and two others. --- Petitioners/ Respondents/ Defendants. AND Matturti Satyanarayana and nine others. --- Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5282 OF 2010 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6205 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the common order in I.A. Nos.1419, 1420 and 1421 of 2010 in O.S. No.6 of 2009, dated 21-08-2010, passed by the Judge Family Court-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram (For short, ‘the learned Additional District Judge”). The Civil Revision Petition No.5282 of 2010 was filed against order passed in I.A. No.1421 of 2010 in O.S. No.6 of 2009 and Civil Revision Petition (SR) No.29070 of 2010 is filed against the order passed in I.A. No.1420 of 2010 in O.S. No.6 of 2009. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. First Respondent-plaintiff filed I.A. No.1419 of 2010 under Section 151 C.P.C to reopen the suit for further examination of PW.1 in view of documents filed for marking as exhibits, I.A. No.1420 of 2010 under Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C. to recall PW.1 for further examination and to give evidence and I.A. No.1421 of 2010 under Order VIII Rule 4 (1) C.P.C. to condone the delay in filing the list of documents for being marked through PW.1. The lower Court duly allowed the three petitions by imposing costs of Rs.200/- per each petition. Challenging the orders in I.A. Nos.1421 and 1420 of 2010 in O.S. No.6 of 2009, these revisions are preferred. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that as per Order VII Rule 14 C.P.C., the documents were not filed along with the plaint and now they cannot be received in evidence at a belated stage and therefore he seeks to set aside the orders in I.A. Nos.1421 of 2010 and 1420 of 2010, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, allowed the said I.A.s and permitted PW.1 to further cross-examination and to give evidence with reference to certain documents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in support of his contention, relied on a decision reported in Bayya Mohan Rao and another V. Parsia Bala Slubrahmanyeswara Rao[1], wherein the learned single Judge of this Court held : “Allowing applications filed under Order VII Rule 14 CPC by a cryptic order permitting to receive certain documents subject to relevancy and proof is improper and the impugned order of the trial Court is liable to be set aside.” The learned Additional District Judge, while allowing the said I.A.s, recorded a specific finding that the defendants-petitioners herein pleaded in the written statement that the first respondent-plaintiff has no financial capacity to purchase the suit schedule property and a specific issue has been framed in that regard and therefore to substantiate his version, the respondent-plaintiff recalls PW.1 for the purpose of giving evidence with reference to certain documents to prove that he has financial capacity to purchase the suit schedule property. If the Court records sufficient reasons and grants permission, such a petition can be allowed as per Order VII Rule 14 (3) of C.P.C. The decision cited supra, cannot be applied to the facts of the present case, since the learned Additional District Judge recorded adequate reasons while allowing the petitions under Order VII Rule 14 C.P.C. Therefore, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the learned Additional District Judge, and the Revisions are accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission itself. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J. Dt.10-12-2010. DSH [1] 2007 (4) ALT 436.