IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.NO.5103 OF 2008 Date:18.02.2010 Between:- P.Chandhra Goud and another .. Petitioners/Plaintiffs And Loka Raja Reddy and another .. Respondents/defendants ORDER:- The revision is directed against the order dated 28.07.2008 made in I.A.No.42 of 2008 in O.S.No.57 of 2000 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal whereunder and whereby, the petition filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘C.P.C’ for brevity) to receive the document was dismissed on the ground that there was no pleading and also no evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners/plaintiffs with reference to this document. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since D.W.2 denied the execution of the document now sought to be marked on 07.11.2007, immediately, the present application is filed to receive the document and though the document now sought to be received is unregistered, it can be used for collateral purpose and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. He also relied upon a decision of this Court in BADA BODAIAH AND ANOTHER VS. BADA LINGASWAMY AND OTHERS[1]. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants contended that the boundaries of the suit schedule property have been disputed by filing written statement in the year 2000 and thereafter, the petitioners have not taken any steps to file this document and no reason is assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, that there is no error of law apparent on the face of the record so as to call for interference by this Court. 4. There may not be any dispute that the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are supervisory. It cannot be exercised as an appellate or revisionary power. It must be shown that there must be a flaggerant error of justice or error of law apparent on the face of the record, otherwise, this Court would not interfere with the same exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. In the above mentioned decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is held as follows: “Mere non-mention of the documents in the plaint or subsequent incidental or supplemental proceedings in the suit does not in any manner affect the power of the Court to grant leave to produce the documents at the subsequent stage. Non-mentioning of the documents sought to be produced at the subsequent stage is a curable defect. With leave of Court, which is condition precedent under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of Order VII read with Sub-rule (1) of Order 13 to receive the documents, documents can be produced at the time of trial. But Order VII Rule 14(3) being an exception to the rule in Order VII Rule 14(1) as well as Order XII Rule 1(1)(2), the power to grant must be exercised in rare cases and not in a routine manner.” No doubt, in view of the above decision, the document can be received at a subsequent stage, but it must be exercised in rare cases but not in routine manner. Therefore, the petitioners must show by sufficient reason or cause that they were prevented from filing the document immediately after filing of the written statement by the defendants in the trial Court disputing about the schedule property. That plea has not been taken and their evidence was let in. Similarly, the respondents have come to the witness box and they have examined their witnesses duly disputing about the identity of the property. Now, the document sought to be marked is for collateral purpose of showing the boundaries. No doubt, the unregistered document can be received as an evidence for the collateral purpose, but at the same time, when D.W.2, who is a party to the document, was examined, the same was not confronted to him with regard to the execution of the document. Not even a single reason is assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition as to how the document can be received at a belated stage. Therefore, the trial Court, after considering the fact that there was no pleading and no evidence with regard to the execution of the document, rightly dismissed the petition. The said order needs no interference of this Court. 6. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. _​_______________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 18th February, 2010 AMD [1] 2003(1) ALD 790