THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 2728 and 2709 OF 2011 Dated: 28.11.2011 Between : Col. (Retd) N.Ranga Rao … Petitioner And The Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh and 3 others … Respondents The Court made the following:- THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 2728 and 2709 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: These two revision petitions are directed against the common order dated 29.04.2011 passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District in I.A.Nos.766 of 2011 and 767 of 2011 in O.S.No.240 of 1995. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff No.1. While the suit was coming up for evidence of the plaintiffs, he filed I.A.No.766 of 2011 under Order VII Rule 14 of C.P.C. to permit him to produce certain documents in evidence. He also filed I.A.No.767 of 2011 to receive the said documents as secondary evidence. The Court below dismissed both the applications by common order dated 29.04.2011 and aggrieved by the same, these two revision petitions are filed by the plaintiff No.1. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite notice, none appeared for the respondents. As per Order VII Rule 14 of C.P.C. in appropriate cases, it is always open to the Court below to grant leave to produce the documents which ought to be produced along with the plaint but are not so produced. In the case on hand, the matter is still at the stage of the plaintiffs’ evidence and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the other side by receiving the documents. Apparently the Court below failed to exercise the discretion conferred under Order VII Rule 14 of C.P.C. and dismissed I.A.No.766 of 2011 merely on the ground that the documents are not original documents. Whether the said documents can be received as secondary evidence or not requires consideration in I.A.No.767 of 2011 after granting leave as provided under Order VII Rule 14 of C.P.C. for producing the documents. Hence the Court below committed an error in dismissing both the applications by a common order. The discretion to be exercised under Order VII Rule 14 of C.P.C. is entirely different and apparently the Court below failed to exercise the said discretion. Therefore, the common order under Revision is hereby set aside and I.A.No.766 of 2011 is allowed. So far as I.A.No.767 of 2011 is concerned, there shall be a direction to the Court below to reconsider the same and pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 28.11.2011 Ivd