THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.1094 of 2010 Date: 19-3-2010 Between Godella Siva Venkateshwaramma … Petitioner/Petitioner/Defendant and D.Rama Chandra Rao … Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.1094 of 2010 Oral Order: Heard both sides. 2. This revision is directed against the order and decree, dated 23-02-2010, in I.A.No.53 of 2010 in O.S.No.198 of 2008, passed by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, Krishna district. 3. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the earlier transaction by way of registered sale deed could not be pressed into service during the course of trial. When it was ultimately found, for various reasons, as stated in the affidavit filed before the trial court, the same was sought to be marked. The said request was promptly resisted by the other side and eventually the trial court rejected the interlocutory application filed in that regard. 4. The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit is for specific performance. By the very nature of the suit, some times, the earlier transaction by way of registered sale deeds may be relevant, of course, it is for the trial court to express any view in that regard. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, particularly keeping in view the nature of the suit and the other circumstances that have been put forth by the petitioner, I feel it expedient to permit the petitioner to file the said document viz., registered sale deed dated 20-7-2006. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, strenuously contended that this interlocutory application had been filed at a belated stage i.e., at the stage of arguments of the defendant. 6. No doubt, this is a valid ground for rejection of the relief sought for by the petitioner, but, still, as already noticed, in view of the nature of the suit, I deem it expedient to direct the trial court to receive the said document, examine the same and express its views on merits. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner had categorically stated that there will not be any further evidence to let in, in this regard except to mark the document. 8. In view of the said statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I feel it expedient to allow the revision petition with a direction to the trial court to receive the document viz., registered sale deed dated 20-7-2007 and express its views on the said document on merits, including the relevancy and admissibility. 9. With the above observations and directions, the civil revision petition is allowed, at the stage of admission and the order under revision is set aside. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 19th March, 2010. Ak