THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No :3614 of 2008 DATED:20.06.2011 Between: Medasani Ananda Naidu. ..... PETITIONER And Kandati Siddaramaiah Chetty & 3 others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 01.07.2008, in I.A.No.163 of 2008 in O.S.No.357 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein-plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14 (3) r/w Section 151 CPC for receiving certain documents filed along with the application, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner herein filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale and for permanent injunction and also for declaration that the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in the name of the 4th defendant are void. Defendants filed written statement contesting the suit. After framing necessary issues, the trial of the suit was taken up. Plaintiff’s evidence was closed on 26.07.2007 and the defendants’ evidence was closed on 12.02.2008. When the matter stood posted for hearing arguments, petitioner-plaintiff filed I.A.No.163 of 2008 seeking permission to file certain documents namely: 1) Bank statement from 01.02.2004 to 20.09.2007 of the plaintiff 2) Copy of letter dated 01.08.2004 addressed to the institution of the 4th defendant by the plaintiff 3) Acknowledgment of the letter dated 01.08.2004 4) True copy of the voucher depositing the D.D. amount of Rsa.4500/- issued by the 4th defendant’s institution 5) Bank statement of plaintiff issued by the Allahabad Bank, Mosque Road Branch, Tirupathi bearing A/c.No.200063 6) Registration copy of sale deed executed by G.Purushotham Chetty in favour of the 4th defendant 7) Registration copy of sale deed executed by P.Obulesu in favour of 4th defendant 8) Registration copy of sale deed executed by K.Vallemma, K.Reddy Usharani and K.Sarada in faovur of 4th defendant and 9) Encumbrance certificates (8 in number). 2. Respondents-defendants opposed the application on the ground that it is belated and the documents are also not relevant. 3. Petitioner-plaintiff seeks to produce the documents for the purpose of showing his capacity to purchase the property inasmuch as the respondents-defendants have disputed the same. Petitioner also contends that the mutation effected in the revenue records in the name of the 4th defendant is the result of fabrication. The question as to whether or not the documents are relevant and they are duly proved is a matter to be considered by the trial Court at an appropriate stage. In the present application, the prayer is only to receive the documents for which there cannot be any tenable objection to receive them subject to proof and relevancy. 4. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2004, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after receiving the documents filed along with I.A.No.163 of 2008 subject to proof and relevancy. The impugned order is set aside. 5. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 20th June, 2011. Tsy