IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSANDAND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY, JSEETHAPATHY C.R.P.Nos.5600 & 5906 OF 2008 C.R.P.No.5600 OF 2008 Between: Thellakula Ananda Chetty …Petitioner A n d Tellakula Subramanyam …Respondent A n d C.R.P.No.5600 OF 2008 Between: Thellakula Ananda Chetty …Petitioner A n d Tellakula Subramanyam …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.Nos.5600 & 5906 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: These two civil revision petitions arise out of the common order in I.A.Nos.401 and 402 of 2008 in O.S.No.56 of 2003, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, wherein the said applications filed by the petitioner herein, the plaintiff, under Order VII Rule 14 CPC to re-call P.W.1 for marking some documents and under Order XVIII Rule 17 seeking permission to produce those documents, were dismissed. 2. Heard the leaned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent, though served with notices. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner filed the suit against his son, the respondent/ defendant, for cancellation of gift deed dated 14.12.1998 said to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent. According to the petitioner/plaintiff, the said document was obtained from him by the respondent while the petitioner was in a state of intoxication. The respondent/defendant filed a written statement contesting the suit and denying that there was any fraud played on the petitioner and contending that the petitioner voluntarily executed the settlement deed. After framing of necessary issues, the trial of the suit commenced. The plaintiff’s side evidence was recorded. 4. It is not disputed that there were some other suits between the petitioner and his other sons. The respondent is the 3rd son of the petitioner. It is stated that earlier C.R.P.No.4770 of 2008 was filed by one Srinivsulu, eldest son of the petitioner that arose from another suit. The said C.R.P was dismissed by this Court. The petitioner contends that the respondent herein who was one of the respondents in C.R.P.No.4770 of 2008 filed a counter-affidavit wherein the respondent herein admitted that himself and his brother obtained two registered settlement deeds from the petitioner while the petitioner was in a state of intoxication. The respondent would contend that he never engaged any counsel to defend himself in C.R.P.No.4770 of 2008 and he never filed any counter-affidavit to the above effect. The respondent herein further denied the signature on the said counter-affidavit. 5. The question as to whether or not the gift deed dated 14.12.1998 is vitiated by fraud and whether or not it was obtained from the petitioner while he was in intoxicated state of mind, as alleged by him, is a matter to be considered on evidence during the course of trial. The petitioner seeks to rely upon an admission alleged to have been made by the respondent and contained in the counter affidavit said to have been filed by the respondent herein in C.R.P.No.4770 of 2008. The question as to whether or not the respondent filed any counter-affidavit in the said C.R.P.No.4770 of 2008 and whether or not the said counter-affidavit contains the signature of the respondent cannot be gone into in the present proceedings. The petitioner cannot, however, be denied the opportunity to file certified copy of the said counter- affidavit filed in C.R.P.No.4770 of 2008. The relevancy and probative value of the said document are matters to be considered at the appropriate stage by the trial Court. When the petitioner seeks to file a certified copy of the pleading filed in the CRP, there cannot be any tenable objection for receiving the same subject to proof and relevancy. In that view of the matter, it is considered that the document sought to be filed by the petitioner can be received subject to its proof and relevancy. For the purpose of filing the said document, the petitioner can be permitted to be re-called for giving further evidence pertaining to the said document. The impugned order dismissing the applications is, therefore, held liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 6 . In the result, both the civil revision petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 17th August, 2011 Lrkm.