THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:6292 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 20.10.2009 in I.A.No:1219 of 2009 in O.S.No:12 of 2008 on the file of the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. The revision petitioners are defendants-3 to 9, 16 and 17 in the suit. I.A.1219 of2009 was filed by the 1st respondent-plaintiff in the suit under order 7 rule 14 (3) C.P.C seeking to receive 24 documents. The said application was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioners-defendants-3 to9, 16 and 17. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition in I.A.No:1219 of 2009 by the plaintiff that he filed the suit for partition, separate possession and perpetual injunction and the documents now sought to be received were already filed along with I.A.880 of 2009 and at the time of filing the suit, as the originals are not traced out he could file only zerox copies and now, the originals are traced out and therefore, the documents in question maybe received and admitted in evidence. On behalf of petitioners-defendants-3 to 9, 16 and 17, counter was filed stating that the 1st respondent-plaintiff filed I.A.880 of 2009 to receive documents. But, subsequently, he did not present it, so that the said petition was dismissed as not pressed and in view of the dismissal of the earlier petition, the present petition for the self same relief is not maintainable. It is also alleged that the 1st respondent-plaintiff did not furnish the copies of the documents to them and therefore, the said documents cannot be received in to Court. Apart from that, the 1st respondent- plaintiff did not pay the court fee for the documents as required under Article 9 of Schedule II of the A.P. Court fees and Suits Valuation Act. Hence, the petition is not maintainable. It is further alleged that the 1st respondent-plaintiff who is in possession of the property did not file the documents along with the suit or at least subsequently before framing the issues and therefore, at this stage, the documents in question cannot be received and apart from that, the documents are not at all relevant and that too, they are filed only to fill up the lacunaes in the case of the 1st respondent-plaintiff. The learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants-3 to 9, 16 and 17 submits that the petitioners are the contesting defendants in the suit for partition and the 1st respondent-plaintiff had already filed an application in I.A.880 of 2009 seeking to receive the documents and the same was dismissed as not pressed and therefore, the present application seeking for the self same relief, is not maintainable. The Court below has committed an error in allowing this application. It is further submitted that on behalf of defendants, written statement was filed, issues were framed and the trial has also been commenced and 1st respondent-plaintiff has also filed the chief affidavit and at this stage, the1st respondent-plaintiff has filed I.A.1219 and the same was allowed without considering the contentions raised by the petitioners-defendants-3 to 9,16 and 17. Hence, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. Admittedly, the 1st respondent-plaintiff had filed I.A.880 of 2009 on an earlier occasion under order 7 rule 14 (3) C.P.C seeking to receive certain documents only on the ground that at the time of filing the suit, originals documents are not traced and therefore, he could file only zerox copies at the time of filing of the suit. Subsequently, on the memo seeking to not press the I.A.880 of 2009, the said I.A was dismissed. It is the case of the 1st respondent-plaintiff that subsequent thereto, he could be able to trace the originals and therefore, he filed I.A.1219 of 2009 seeking to receive the same in evidence on the ground that they are relevant for adjudication of the issue involved in the suit. With regard to the contentions as to the maintainability of the application in I.A.1219 of 2009 and non service of copies of documents on the petitioners-defendants-3 to 9, 16 and 17 and non payment of court fee, the learned trial Court has rightly observed that since I.A.880 of 2009 was dismissed as not pressed, there is no bar under the provisions of sub rule 3 rule 14 C.P.C., which lays down that the documents which were not filed along with the plaint or subsequent thereto, can be received into Court at the time of adducing evidence, to file the documents. With regard to the objection as to the non service of copies of documents on the petitioners-defendants-3 to 9, 16 and 17, the learned trial Court has rightly observed that no such objection was raised on the earlier occasion. As far as the payment of court fee is concerned, same can be looked into by the learned trial Court at the relevant point of time. At this stage, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants-3 to 9, 16 and 17 that the documents in question may be directed to be received subject to proof and relevance. In this regard, the learned trial Court has clarified that the question of admissibility of documents with reference to the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, A.P. Court Fee Act and the Evidence Act will be considered at the stage when they are sought to be admitted as exhibits. Therefore, it is needless to observe that it is always open to the parties concerned to take appropriate objections at the relevant point of time as to the relevancy and admissibility of the documents in accordance with law. Under these circumstances, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order impugned. Therefore, this C.R.P is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. _________________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J 19.1.2010 gurc. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:6292 OF 2009 Dated 19th Jannuary, 2010.