IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1460 OF 2010 Between : Smt V.Leela Devi and others. .... PETITIONERS A N D M/s Twin Cities Permanent Fund Ltd. …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 1460 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 05.02.2010, in I.A.No.799 of 2009 in I.A.No.800 of 2009 in O.S.No.714 of 2002 on the file of V Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District, whereunder and whereby, the application, filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’), by the respondent / plaintiff to receive the documents in evidence as per the list annexed thereto, was allowed subject to payment of Rs.1000/- as costs to the petitioners herein for belated filing of the application. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners / defendants contended that there is no pleading or reference in the petition about the documents sought to be received and no explanation was given for not filing these documents, when P.W.1 was examined, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff contended that the petition to receive the documents was allowed on payment of Rs.1000/- and the same was received by the petitioners, and thereafter the documents were marked and hence, the Civil Revision Petition becomes infructuous. 4. The receipt of documents after recording evidence is not automatic or routine. Without leave of the Court, the documents cannot be received. An explanation was given by respondent that since the documents were misplaced and were not readily available with him at the time of examination of P.W.1, they have been filed into the Court. Therefore, proper explanation was given by the respondent for not filing the documents at the time of examination of P.W.1. But, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no reference about these documents in the pleadings and so, any amount of evidence is valueless. That aspect of the case has to be decided by the trial Court at the time of arguments. In view of the fact that the petitioners herein having received the costs as ordered by the trial Court and allowed those documents to be marked on behalf of the respondent, they cannot turn around and say that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the objections taken by the petitioners can as well be adjudicated at the time of arguments. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU. J NOVEMBER 15, 2010. YVL