HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.6192/2009 DT.26-3-2010 Mattaparthi Satya Nageswara Rao …Petitioner V. Bokka Gopalakrishnayya ..Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.6192/2009 ORAL ORDER: The plaintiff is in revision against the orders of the Junior Civil Judge, Mummidivaram dt. 13-11-2009 dismissing IA No.605/2009 in OS No.73/2006 filed to receive two documents, namely, registered sale deed dt. 20-8-1934 and partition deed dt.19-5-1989 for the purpose of marking the same on behalf of the plaintiff. It is not disputed that on defendant filing the written statement, the issues were settled. During the course of trial, after examining P.W.1, the case was posted for further evidence. Though the petitioner-plaintiff earlier filed an application to receive three documents, namely, (1) encumbrance certificate; (2) passbook; (3) registration extract of sale deed dt. 1-7-1944, he forgotten to mark the same in the evidence. Now the petitioner-plaintiff filed the present petition to receive the above two documents, as they are necessary to substantiate his case. The respondent-defendant contested the petition by filing counter stating that in the year 2006 the petitioner-plaintiff filed a petition to receive three documents, which was allowed but he failed to mark the same as exhibits in his evidence; the schedule appended to in the sale deed dt. 20-3-1934, which is sought to be received and marked, is fake and the partition deed is an unregistered deed, which recites relinquishment of rights by the co-sharers and the same cannot be marked. The plaint copy produced by the petitioner-plaintiff would disclose that there is no averment with regard to the sale deed dt. 20-3-1934, which is now sought to be marked, and tracing of title from the said sale deed. The clause of action arose was shown on 11-8-1991, ie., much after the execution of the documents sought to be received. It is well settled principle of law that in the absence of any pleading the oral evidence in relation thereto is worthless. In view of the same, the discretion exercised by the trial court refusing to receive the documents for the purpose of marking the same in the evidence does not call for interference. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date:26-3-2010 kmr