THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2446 of 2010 (Dated : 01-02-2011) Between: V.Narasimulu …Petitioner A n d Garlapati Prakash and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2446 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 01.6.2010 passed in O.S.No.74 of 2003 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, at Mahabubnagar, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with section 151 CPC. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and whereas the respondents are defendants in O.S.No.74 of 2003. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property. He claimed the suit schedule property on the basis of the Will executed by Manemma. The defendants filed written statement disputing the genuineness of the Will propounded by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.278 of 2010 in O.S.No.74 of 2003 under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC to receive `Lagna Patrika’ dated 23.6.1978 in evidence on his behalf. The defendants 1, 2, 3 and 7 filed counter resisting the application. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the application, by order dated 01.06.2010. The said order is assailed in this revision. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 21.6.2010. Respondents 1 to 3 entered appearance through a counsel. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-plaintiff all through contending that he has been brought up by Manemma and got him married in 1978 and the document sought to be received in evidence is essential to substantiate his plea. A further submission has been made that the petitioner could not trace the document prior to commencement of his evidence. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 contends that the petitioner has not given any valid reasons for not filing the document before settlement of issues. A further submission has been made that the document sought to be received in evidence is concocted and therefore, the trial Court is justified in dismissing the application. 7. I have gone through the plaint averments. In para 2 of the plaint, it is stated that Manemma brought the plaintiff to her house in the year 1960 when the plaintiff was aged about 16 years. The said Manemma got him educated and also got him married in the year 1978. 8. The petitioner-plaintiff filed an application before the trial Court to receive `Lagna Patrika’ in evidence. The fact of Manemma getting the plaintiff married in 1978 is stated in the plaint itself. Therefore, the document sought to be received in evidence is essential to substantiate the plea of the petitioner-plaintiff. Delay in filing the document can be condoned on terms. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 01.6.2010 passed in I.A.No.278 of 2010 in O.S.No.74 of 2003. Consequently, I.A.No.278 of 2010 stands allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.2000/- within a period of two weeks from today. Failing deposit of costs of Rs.2,000/- within two weeks, the order impugned in the revision shall hold good. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.01-02-2011 Note:- Issue CC in two days (B/o) RAR U R G E N T THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2446 of 2010 DATED : 01-02-2011