THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.No.2441 of 2010 Date:13.12.2010 Between: Rudraraju Srinivasa Rao. Petitioner. And Rudraraju Satyavathi Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.No.2441 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 04.11.2009 passed in I.A.No.579 of 2009 in H.M.O.P No.13 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili. In the course of the enquiry in the O.P., the revision petitioner filed a document, which is said to be an agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondent on 3.12.2007 before the elders according to which the petitioner made provision for maintenance to the respondent and the respondent agreed for giving divorce by mutual consent. The petition was opposed by the respondent on the ground that the property mentioned in the document is her absolute property and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and also that since it relates the immovable property liable for stamp duty and penalty. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned Senior Civil Judge by his order dated 4.11.2009 dismissed the petition on the ground that the perusal of the agreement reveals that the land as well as electricity connection to the motor stands in the name of the respondent, it is therefore absolute property of the respondent and she is in possession and enjoyment of the same and also by holding that if at all the petitioner wants relinquish any share in the immovable property she has to do by means of a registered document duly stamped. Holding as such the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the petition stating that it can not be admitted. The present revision is filed against the said order. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. In support of his contention, that without receiving the document in evidence, the learned trial Court ought not to have dismissed the petition the learned counsel relied upon the following decisions: (i) Aravapalli Sriranganayakulu vs. Godavarthi Leelavathi[1], wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court referring to Order 13, Rules 2 & 3 held that upon good cause being shown for their non- production, earlier documents can be received under Rule 2 at a subsequent stage of the proceedings and that is not a stage at which a finding as regards relevancy or admissibility of a document be given and that is also not a stage where rejection of documents under Rule 3 as being irrelevant or inadmissible can be made. (ii) Dasuputruni Suryanarayana v.Dasuputruni Adinarayana and others[2], wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court referring to Order 8, Rule 1-A (3) CPC held that the documents filed after filing of written statement can be received by the Court on being satisfied with by reasons assigned by the party filed in the document and the said document being a possessary sale agreement, the court can receive the documents and in doing so no jurisdictional error is committed because nature of the document cannot be gone into at that stage. From these above two judgments, it is obvious that the question of rejection of documents when it is filed under Order 13, Rule 2 CPC does not arise. The said question arises at a subsequent stage only when the Court decides as to the admissibility or relevancy of the document. In the instant case, the learned trial Court without properly examining the documents, recorded a finding that the property mentioned in the document is absolute property of the respondent and further it ought not to have declined to receive the document on the ground that it should be properly stamped and it should be a registered one. The order passed by the learned Court below, therefore, is unsustainable and contrary to the provisions of Order 13 CPC. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside. The order dated 4.11.2009 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili is set aside and the learned Senior Civil Judge is directed to receive the documents and may decide admissibility, genuineness or otherwise of the documents at appropriate stage. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Date:13.12.2010 mrb [1] 2001 (2) ALT 32 [2] 2005 (3) ALT 87 (D.B)