HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3853 OF 2011 DATE:16-9-2011 BETWEEN Sangam Krishna Reddy …Petitioner AND Samineni Venkateswara Rao and another. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3853 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner, who is the decree holder filed this revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. challenging the order dated 29-08-2011 in E.A No. 54 of 2011 in E.A No. 20 of 2011 in E.P No. 56 of 2008 in O.S No. 62 of 2006 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama in allowing the E.A filed by the first respondent – claim petitioner. The first respondent filed the aforementioned E.A under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of CPC before the trial Court to receive the agreement of sale, dated 09-07-2006 and registered sale deed, dated 30-10-2009 by condoning the delay. By the impugned order, the trial Court while relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar vs. Sri Radha Krishna Singh([1]), allowed the said petition by imposing costs of Rs.500/-. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed by the petitioner – decree holder. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. Admittedly, there cannot be any objection for receiving the documents. If there is any objection with regard to the admissibility of the documents, the petitioner can raise all his objections with regard to the admissibility of those documents during the course of arguments. Hence, I see no discernible infirmity with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court. The civil revision petition fails and shall accordingly stand dismissed. __________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. 16th September, 2011 pnb. [1] AIR 1983 SC 684