THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 5892 of 2009 O r d e r: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 09.02.2009, passed by the IV Additional District Judge, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 478 of 2009 in O.S. No. 167 of 2002, filed by petitioner- plaintiff praying to receive certain documents by condoning the delay. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and the learned counsel for the respondent-defendant and perused the order under revision. Since P.W.2 is signatory to the Family Settlement Deed, and having regard to the fact that the respondent as D.W.1 in his cross- examination, denied to identify the Family Settlement Deed when confronted, the counsel for the petitioner submits that it is necessary that the Family Settlement Deed should be received in evidence, but the Court below refused to receive the same. The petitioner contends that there is no willful negligence on his part in not filing the document earlier. To appreciate the contention of the petitioner whether the Family Settlement Deed was executed and is required to be received, I have perused the contents of the Family Settlement Deed with reference to the pleadings made by the petitioner in the plaint. The petitioner in para (iii) of the plaint, pleaded as follows: When the plaintiff kept on questioning the defendant as to why there was a change in his behaviour, the defendant informed her in the month of June 2000 that her married his niece namely Baby Bhavani i.e. his sister’s daughter some time agao and that he also got a son by her. On hearing this news, when the plaintiff approached the local Mahila Mandali and village elders, the defendant begged all of them and the plaintiff not to proceed against him in Criminal Law promising that he would not ill-treat the plaintiff in future. Thereafter, on 27.06.2000 before the village elders, the defendant executed an undertaking stating that the Sujatha Hospital is the result of the pains taking effort of both the plaintiff and defendant and that as per the wishes of the plaintiff, he is prepared to give and register 60% of the entire property in her name and that he would pay Rs.50,000/- within three months i.e. by 27.09.2000. These pleadings, pleaded by the petitioner in the plaint, do not find place in the Family Settlement Deed, which the petitioner seeks to receive. The Family Settlement Deed is dated 04.02.2000, whereas the pleadings reflect that an undertaking was executed on 27.06.2000. Thus, is it clear that not only the contents of the pleadings match the contents of the Family Settlement Deed, but also the date on which is said to have been executed. Apart from this, the Court below found that the petitioner did not depose about the existence of the Family Settlement Deed, which he wants to file in her chief examination as P.W.1. In the absence of any pleading and deposing about the existence of the Family Settlement Deed, and without filing the same, the petitioner seeks to prove the documents through P.W.2, who is a witness. The petitioner having not pleaded and having not adduced any evidence, the Court below held that she is not entitled to confront the document to the defendant, and accordingly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner praying to receive the document by condoning the delay, and no exception can be taken thereto. In the above view of the matter, this Court finds no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the C.R.P., and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 10th February, 2010 KSR