THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition Nos.674 and 675 of 2010 Date: 19-02-2010 C.R.P.No.674 of 2010: Between Veeranki Mrutyanjaya … Petitioner/ Respondent No.1/Plaintiff and 1. Gudavalli Mahalakshmi … Respondent/ Petitioner/Defendant No.4 2. Veeranki Venkata Narasimha Rao and two others … Respondents/ Defendants 1 to 3 C.R.P.No.675 of 2010: Between Veeranki Mrutyanjaya … Petitioner/ Respondent No.1/Plaintiff and 1. Sonti Sita Mahalakshmi … Respondent/ Petitioner/Defendant No.3 2. Veeranki Venkata Narasimha Rao and two others … Respondents/ Defendants 1, 2 and 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition Nos.674 and 675 of 2010 Oral Common Order: Heard Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Since both the revisions arise out of one suit and the parties being common, they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. These revisions are directed against the orders and decrees, dated 25-01-2010, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Gudivada, Krishna district in allowing the applications I.A.Nos.565 and 535 of 2009 filed under Order IX, Rule 1(a) of CPC, condoning the delay in receiving certain documents sought to be produced by defendants 4 and 3, respectively. 4. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff, respondent No.1 is defendant No.4/3 and respondents 2 to 4 are defendants 1 to 3/1, 2 and 4, respectively, in the suit before the trial Court. 5. It appears that those two documents are allegedly registered gift deeds. In this connection, it is to be seen that there is already reference about these gift deeds, however, for the reasons best known to the defendants 3 and 4, those documents had not been filed along with the written statement. Now, with the leave of the trial Court, these documents were said to be received during the course of trial. 6. It is the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that P.Ws.1 and 2 were already examined and D.Ws.1 to 5 were also examined-in-chief. At that stage, the present interlocutory applications were filed and the trial Court received those documents. 7. It is to be seen that the suit is filed for specific performance. The defendants rely on two registered gift deeds. Even though there was a mention about these documents, the same were not filed along with the written statement. 8. Of course, in the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory applications seeking to condone the delay in filing the documents under Order IX, Rule 1(a) of CPC, it was stated that the documents were misplaced and therefore, they could not be filed in time. Having regard to the said fact, the delay was condoned and the said documents were received by the trial Court. 9. If necessary documents, which are already mentioned in the written statement, were not received, the corollary would be – in the appeal, a ground may be taken under Section 105 of CPC and in all probability, the lower appellate Court may remand the matter back to the trial Court, depending upon the necessity of looking into those documents and in such a case, it would only result in multiplication or duplication of the litigation. To avoid such a contingency, it is expedient to receive the documents during trial itself, of course, not at a belated stage or if the explanation offered is not to the satisfaction of the trial Court or if such receipt of the documents would result in, likely to cause irreparable prejudice. At the same time, the receipt of documents also is not permissible by just mere asking. 10. The trial Court has to weigh the circumstances to the facts and circumstances of each case before entertaining such applications and pass orders in receiving such documents, in the interest of justice. 11. For the foregoing, I do not find any merit in the present revisions and I am of the view that the trial Court had exercised its discretionary jurisdiction judiciously. There is no apparent error or irrationality in the orders passed by the trial Court. 12. In the result, both the civil revision petitions are dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the impugned orders. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 19th February, 2010. Ak