HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5011 OF 2010. DATED 16th day of December, 2010. BETWEEN Sri Balaji Enterprises, Ongole, Rep. by sole proprietor Atmakuri Jayalaskhmi …Petitioners and A Ghanashyam and anr ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5011 OF 2010. ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed aggrieved by the order dated 17.09.2010 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongle, dismissing I.A.No. 900 of 2010 in O.S.No. 327 of 2005 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 13 Rules 1 & 2 r/w Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC to receive rough document prepared by DW.2 under four heads containing nine pages for the purpose of marking on behalf of the plaintiff. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit against the respondents herein for recovery of money and subsequent interest thereon, based on the account copy marked as Ex.A.2. It is the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that the first respondent/first defendant purchased the construction material from it for the purpose of construction of a theater and the second respondent/second defendant who is the manager of the theater, used to receive the stock on behalf of the first defendant and acknowledge the accounts. As the first respondent/defendant has not cleared the outstanding balance, the same led to filing of the aforesaid suit. The first respondent herein filed the written statement denying opening of the Khatha account. He also denied that the second respondent is not the manager of the theater. Based on the rival pleadings, the Court below framed necessary issues. After both parties led evidence, the matter was posted for arguments on 28. 7.2010. At this stage, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the present application to receive the rough document prepared by DW.2 under four heads containing nine pages for the purpose of marking on its behalf. The Court below by order dated 17.09.2010 dismissed the impugned application. Hence this revision. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the document sought to be marked in evidence was not available at the time of filing of the suit and it was found only at the fag end of the trial. He further submitted that inasmuch as the first respondent had denied the transaction, the document sought to be marked is a vital piece of evidence as the same was in the handwriting of the second respondent, who acted as the manager of the first respondent. Order VII Rule 14 CPC mandates that the plaintiff shall produce all the documents on which he relies on or at least he must state the description of the documents on which he relied on or in whose possession those documents are available. In case, the document/s ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff is/are not produced or entered accordingly, the same shall not, without leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the time of hearing. In this case, the plaintiff has not stated about the documents sought to be enclosed along with the present impugned application at any time prior to filing of the petition. Even, the plaintiff has not stated about the document sought to be produced with the impugned application in the plaint or in the evidence of PW.1. In the cross examination of DW.1 and DW2 also, the plaintiff has not suggested that the second defendant has prepared a rough copy before preparing a fair copy account in the account book and the same is in the custody of DW.2. Having gone through the order under revision, I do not see any illegality or infirmity therein. Further, the Court below is of the correct view that the provision under Order 13 Rules 1and 2 of CPC is not relevant to the present stage of the suit inasmuch as the said provision mandates that a party who filed the copy of the document along with the plaint or written statement shall produce original of the same before the settlement of the issues. For the foregoing discussion, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 16th December, 2010. Msnro