IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2858 of 2010 Between: Dasari Krishna Murthy ..... PETITIONER AND Methani Kittanna .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2858 of 2010 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that he is the 1st plaintiff, and himself and other plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendant in O.S.741/2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalli for declaration of their right and title in respect of XY lane, and for removal of wall existing in MN portion of plaint plan and for permanent injunction. When the matter is coming up for hearing, the petitioner/1st plaintiff filed I.A.334/2010 under Or.7 Rule-1(3)(a) and Secs.151 and 94(e) of CPC seeking to condone delay in filing certified copy of Revision Register issued by the Panchayath Secretary of Thettu dated 06.04.2010. It is stated that he could not file the said important document in time to show his bona fides and recently he has obtained the same from Panchayat Secretary of Thettu and it is only a mistake and not intentional. A counter was filed by the defendant in the said I.A. stating that the averments made in the petition to condone the delay are utterly false and incorrect and in fact the petitioner was given ample opportunity to produce their evidence and after exhausting sufficient time they have closed their evidence. The relevance of the said document is not at all mentioned in the affidavit. The court below after considering the rival contentions of both parties dismissed the said application, against which this civil revision petition is filed under Article-227 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said IA was filed under Or.7 Rul-14(3) CPC seeking to condone the delay in filing the documents. The said contention is not correct on the face of it as the petition filed before the Court below is not under Or.7 Rule- 14(3). It was filed under Or.7 Rule-1(3) (a) which do not at all exist in the Code of Civil Procedure and under Secs.151 and 94(e) of CPC. Sec.94(e) CPC was also not applicable for condonation of delay in filing the documents. The relevant provision is under Or.7 Rule-14(3) CPC. Under Or.7 Rule-14(3) CPC a document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. As the petitioner has not filed any such application under Or.7 Rule-14(3) CPC, I am of the opinion that the dismissal of the said application cannot be found fault with. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application before the Court below with correct provision, if he is advised to do so. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 23.07.2010 Dsr