THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1914 AND 1915 OF 2010 Dated:23.07.2010 Between: M.Chandrakala .. Petitioner And The City Municipality, Mahabubnagar, Rep., by its Commissioner .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1914 AND 1915 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions are directed against the orders, dated 23.03.2010, in I.A.Nos.160 and 251 of 2010 in O.S.No.148 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, whereby the petitions for recalling PW.1 for marking certain documents and calling for the records were dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff, who is the wife of a practicing advocate, filed the said suit against the Municipality for declaration of title and for consequential injunction. The respondent/Municipality herein contested the said suit by filing a written statement. The recording of evidence on both sides was completed and now the suit is at the stage of arguments. At that stage, the petitioner filed the present applications stating that the certified copies of registered sale deeds, numbering 21, are required to be marked in the suit. However, the said applications were opposed by the respondent/Municipality, stating that the said documents are not relevant and it is not stated as to why they are filed at a belated stage. Having accepted the said contentions putforth by the counsel for the respondent, the Court below dismissed the applications through its orders dated 23.03.2010. Hence, these revisions. Though the notice is served on the respondent, it has not chosen to put in appearance. Heard Mr. M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents, which are 21 in number, are very important and establish as to whether the land in question is situated in Mahabubnagar Municipality or in Thummasanipally Gram Panchayat, and as such the Court below ought to have recalled them. The petitioner is none other than the wife of the advocate and she knows the legal consequences. In the normal circumstances, any document, on which the plaintiff places reliance, shall be filed along with the copy of the plaint. If a document is not available at the time when the suit is instituted, it is open for the plaintiff to file the same at a later stage, but not at a stage when the entire evidence was over and the suit is ripe for arguments. In the instant case, the applications are filed at the stage of arguments. Further, according to the respondent, the relevance of the documents is not mentioned in the said petitions. It is not as though this particular fact that the lands are situated in Gram Panchayat but not in Municipality has come into light very recently. It is admitted that this Gram Panchayat is in existence for the last several years and in my considered view this particular fact should have been mentioned in the plaint and thereafter established by clinching and cogent evidence. As the suit is of the year 2006 and the said documents are filed in the year 2010, this Court is not inclined to allow these revisions. However, as it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this is a suit for declaration of title and these documents establish as to whether the land in question is situated in Mahabubnagar Municipality or Thimmasanipalli Gram Panchayat, and as the respondent Municipality had not put in its appearance, this Court is of the view that an opportunity may be given to the petitioner, however, on imposing costs. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the Court below is hereby directed to recall PW.1 for the purpose of marking the certified copies of registered sale deeds, numbering 21, however, on condition of the petitioner paying costs of Rs.4,000/- to be paid to the District Legal Services Authority, Mahabubnagar, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On ascertaining the fact that the said costs have been paid the Court below may proceed in accordance with law. ____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 23.07.2010 KH