IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH (29TH) DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5699 of 2010 & Civil Revision Petition No.5899 of 2010 Between: K. Bharath Kumar … Petitioner And: Kota Niranjan Reddy & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5699 of 2010 & Civil Revision Petition No.5899 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: CRP No.5699 of 2010 is directed against the order dated 16.11.2010 in IA No.497 of 2009 in OS No.33 of 2007 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Karimnagar, wherein the said application filed by the first respondent herein-plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC, was allowed. 2. CRP No.5899 of 2010 is directed against the docket order dated 08.12.2010 in OS No.33 of 2007 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, wherein further cross- examination of PW.1 by the petitioner herein-7th defendant, was treated as ‘nil’ on the ground that the petitioner herein was not reporting ready and matter was posted for further evidence. 3. As the two revisions arose from out of the same suit in between the same parties, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 4. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 5. The first respondent herein filed suit originally against defendants 1 to 8 for declaration that the plaintiff and 2nd defendant are joint owners of the suit land. Subsequently, 9th defendant was added. The petitioner herein-D.7 and others filed written statement contesting the suit. Necessary issues were framed for trial. During evidence of PW.1, plaintiff sought to produce certain documents. Previously, the plaintiff filed IA No.497 of 2009 under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC seeking permission to file documents and the said application was allowed on 04.03.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein-D.7 filed CRP No.2763 of 2010. This Court by order dated 24.09.2010 allowed the said revision and remitted the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal of IA No.497 of 2009 after affording opportunity to both parties. Thereafter, the petitioner-D.7 filed counter opposing the application. After hearing both sides, the trial Court passed the impugned order allowing the application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-D.7 would contend that in spite of earlier direction by this court in the order dated 24.09.2010, no reasons are furnished by the trial Court, even in the impugned order for receiving documents. On the earlier occasion, the trial Court passed a cryptic order as follows: “Counter of R.3 to R.6 and R9 not filed. Submissions of counsel for petitioner, R.3 to R.6 and R.9 heard. Trial is yet to begin. In the circumstances, this petition is allowed.” 7. When the above order was challenged in CRP No.2763 of 2010, this court observed that no reason was assigned for allowing the petition and failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. As seen from the impugned order, the trial Court has given opportunity to both sides to file counter and also gave opportunity of hearing to both sides and framed point for consideration, noted the contentions of both parties and passed a reasoned order. It is open to the petitioner-D.7 to contend that the reasons furnished in the impugned order are not proper or justifiable. He cannot however contend that the impugned order is bereft of any reasons. The impugned order is not akin to the cryptic order passed earlier by the trial Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-D.7 that in spite of direction given by this court, the trial Court has not furnished reasons for allowing the application, is untenable, inasmuch as the impugned order, particularly, para 8 thereof discloses the reasons for allowing the application. Of course in para 9 of the impugned order, the trial Court however stated that the petitioner-D.7 has no locus standi to oppose the petition, inasmuch as the official defendants i.e., respondents 4 to 7 herein, have stated no objection for receiving the documents, which are in the nature of official records and revenue records. What ever be the nature of the documents, the petitioner being one of the defendants, is certainly entitled to question the same, notwithstanding the fact that other defendants have stated no objection for receiving those documents. It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioner-D.7 has no locus standi to oppose the application. 8. However, the scope of present application is limited and the same is filed only for seeking permission to receive the documents and they will have to be ultimately received only subject to proof and relevancy. In the circumstances, the documents sought to be produced being mostly revenue records and official records, there can’t be any tenable objection for receiving those documents by condoning the delay. It is open to the petitioner-D.7 to raise objections regarding their admissibility in evidence at appropriate stage of the proceedings. The documents can therefore be received subject to proof and relevancy. The impugned order allowing the application permitting the petitioner to file documents does not therefore call for any interference. 9. Insofar as CRP No.5899 of 2010 is concerned, as seen from the impugned order, the petitioner-D.7 was not reporting ready on some pretext or other to cross-examine PW.1 and therefore, the trial Court had to treat the cross-examination of PW.1 by D.7 as ‘nil’ and proceed further in the matter. When a party does not evince interest to proceed with the matter or tries to protect and delay the proceedings by not getting ready in spite of granting several adjournments and in spite of specific direction by the Court that no further adjournments will be granted, the trial Court will not have any other option but to proceed further with the matter. The course adopted by the trial Court under those circumstances, therefore, cannot be found fault with. However, as the documents filed by the plaintiff along with IA No.497 of 2009 are now permitted to be received in evidence, it is considered just and proper to give opportunity to the petitioner-D.7 to participate in the proceedings and to cross-examine PW.1 and other witnesses that may be produced by the plaintiff on his side. If the petitioner- D.7 does not avail the opportunity, it is open to the trial court to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. 10. In the circumstances, the impugned order in CRP No.5899 of 2010 is accordingly set aside, permitting the petitioner- D.7 to cross-examine PW.1 and other witnesses. 11. In the result, CRP No.5699 of 2010 is dismissed and CRP No.5899 of 2010 is disposed of, as stated above. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 29.06.2011 bss