IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4161 OF 2009 Between: Rajana Satyanarayana …Petitioner A n d Bokam Satyavathamma and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4161 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.11.2008 in I.A.No.727 of 2008 in O.S.No.36 of 2003, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Yelamanchili, wherein the said application filed by the 1st respondent herein, the plaintiff, under Order VII Rule 14 CPC seeking permission to file certain documents, was allowed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The 1st respondent herein filed the suit for partition. The petitioner herein, the 1st defendant, is contesting the suit. It is stated that the 1st respondent filed I.A.No.727 of 2008 seeking permission to file the statements of D-2 to D-4 said to have been recorded before the Special Deputy Collector, LAO and also the endorsement issued by the Sub-Registrar. The objection raised by the petitioner is that as the persons who gave the statements are alive, the said documents cannot be marked in evidence under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. By allowing the application, the trial Court merely granted permission to file those documents and the trial Court further observed that they are received subject to proof and relevancy. It is, therefore, left open to the petitioner/D- 1 to raise objection against marking of the documents as exhibits as and when they are sought to be produced in evidence. The impugned order, which merely permits filing of the documents subject to proof and relevancy, does not, therefore, call for any interference. 4. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 16th September, 2011 Lrkm