HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.No.4597 OF 2010 Dated 24-1-2011 Between: Pinjani Kamal Kumar. …Petitioner. And: Surapu Naidu. …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.No.4597 OF 2010 ORDER: This C.R.P. is filed seeking to set aside the order passed in E.A.No.96 of 2010 in E.A.No.54 of 2009 in E.P.No.25 of 2006 in O.S.No.3 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Bobbili. I have heard both the learned counsel. E.A.No.54 of 2009 is filed under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. by the petitioner to adjudicate their claim in the E.P. schedule property and to raise the attachment and also to declare that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the said property. When the claim petition is posted for enquiry and it is posted for the evidence of the petitioner who is R.W.1 in the claim petition, the petitioner filed the petition under order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. to receive the following documents: 1. Certified copy of attachment petition in I.A.No.20 of 2004 in O.S.No.3 of 2004. 2. Bailiff’s Report and 3. Agreement dated 12-11-2006. The respondent objected for marking of the documents on the ground that he is not a party to the agreement dated 12-11-2006 and that the said document is a fabricated document. Agreement of sale dated 12-11-2006 as it appears is executed between the wife of the J.Dr. Seetha Devi and her children i.e., respondents 1 to 5 in the claim petition as one party and claim petitioners as other party. He contends that the L.Rs. of J.Dr. executed sale deed in favour of the claim petitioners and it is also mentioned in the agreement that the claim petitioners purchased the said property subject to the result of E.P.No.25 of 2006 in O.S.No.3 of 2009 and that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was kept with the claim petitioners and the claim petitioners had to settle the said E.P. with the D.Hr. and the remaining amount should be shared equally by the L.Rs. of the J.Dr. as one party and claim petitioners as other party. Learned Court below rightly held that the probative value of the document shall be considered at the time of deciding the claim petition and it is also mentioned in the agreement that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was kept with the claim petitioners to settle the said E.P. with the D.Hr. and the remaining amount if any should he shared equally by the L.Rs. of the J.Dr. as one party and the claim petitioners as other party and these are the matters which can only be taken into consideration at the time of adjudicating the claim petition. This Court is of the opinion that the learned court below rightly exercised the discretion to receive the documents in evidence and to decide the probative value of the document at the time of adjudicating the claim petition. The order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity which does not require any interference by this Court in this Revision. For the forgoing reasons, the order passed in E.A.No.96 of 2010 in E.A.No.54 of 2009 in E.P.No.25 of 2006 in O.S.No.3 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Bobbili is confirmed and the C.R.P. is dismissed. No costs. __________________________ Justice R.KANTHA RAO Dated 24-1-2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.No.4597 OF 2010 Dated 24-1-2011