IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.748 of 2011 Between: Smt. Banda Kamala @ Kalamma .. Petitioner AND Varala Yadi Reddy and 5 others .. Respondents ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 21-01-2011 in I.A.No.308 of 2010 in O.S.No.13 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir. The suit was filed for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share of the revision petitioner in the plaint schedule properties alleging the same to be joint family properties that fell to the share of the 1st defendant in a partition with his elder brother Varala Peddi Reddy. The 1st defendant resisted the claim contending the properties to be self-acquired properties and the suit after conclusion of recording of oral and documentary evidence of both parties was coming up for arguments. At this stage, the revision petitioner came up with I.A.No.308 of 2010 and four more interlocutory applications for consequential recalling of the witnesses and recording of further evidence. I.A.No.308 of 2010 requested for receiving the certified copy of the Partition deed dated 10-06-1985 issued by Tahsildar, Pochampally and also to receive certified copy of the statement of Varala Peddi Reddy issued by Tahsildar, Pochampally. The trial Court in the impugned order found that the documents were not produced along with the plaint as required under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it was only at the stage of arguments, the interlocutory applications were filed on 26-03-2010 at a very belated stage. The trial Court felt that the existence of unregistered partition deed dated 10-06-1985 or the statement of Varala Peddi Reddy before the Mandal Revenue Officer were not stated by the revision petitioner earlier and even if the unregistered partition deed is received, it is admissible only for collateral purpose and as it is for the defendants to prove that the properties are self-acquired properties, the trial Court felt that the petitions filed are devoid of merits and dismissed the petitions. The order in I.A.No.308 of 2010 alone is under challenge in this revision contending that the documents are crucial documents as Varala Peddi Reddy admitted the partition in his statement before the revenue officials and the partition deed itself shows the source of acquisition of title by the 1st defendant. The documents clinch the issues involved in the suit and the receiving of the said documents do not cause any loss to the other side. Therefore, the revision petitioner desired the order to be reversed. Heard Sri P. Narsinga Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents. The point for consideration is whether the revision petitioner is entitled to request the Court for receiving the documents produced along with I.A.No.318 of 2010? Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, of course, directs the production of documents on which plaintiff sues or relies on along with the plaint. Sub-rule-(3) of the said rule enables production of documents even subsequently for being received in evidence at the hearing of the suit with the leave of the Court. The leave of the Court is ordinarily granted for receiving documents taking a liberal view. As rules of procedure are intended to be handmaids of justice and not to punish the parties for any technical lapses, any inconvenience caused to the opposite side by the belated production of documents will be attempted to be offset by imposition of appropriate terms and unless there are strong and compelling reasons to reject to receive the documents, such a request will not be normally negatived. Coming to the present case, the plaint itself specifically alleged that the 1st defendant got the properties in question in partition with his elder brother Varala Peddi Reddy though the existence of the partition deed dated 10-06-1985 was not specifically referred to. It is also not in dispute that the 1st defendant is claiming the properties to be his self-acquired properties and has obviously not admitted getting the said properties in the alleged partition with his elder brother. The documents in question are, therefore, relevant documents for the purpose of comprehensive determination of the questions in issue between the parties in the suit and their belated production and the consequential inconvenience to the opposite side can be directed to be compensated on payment of appropriate costs. Even the trial Court did not rule out the possibility of use of unregistered partition deed for a collateral purpose notwithstanding the absence of registration and if the document is liable for any stamp duty or penalty, even such admission for a collateral purpose will be made only on payment of required stamp duty and penalty. The Trial Court was mainly influenced by the fact that the request is abnormally belated and has come up only at the stage of arguments and the mere delay by itself may not be a ground to exclude the documents from consideration in the suit. Therefore, the order dated 21-01-2011 in I.A.No.308 of 2010 in O.S.No.13 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, will be set aside and the said I.A.No.308 of 2010 will be allowed permitting receipt of the certified copy of the partition deed dated 10-06-1985 and the certified copy of the statement of Varala Peddi Reddy both issued by the Tahsildar, Pochampally, subject to their admissibility, relevance and proof, on payment of costs of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) by the revision petitioner to the Mandal Legal Services Committee, Bhongir, Nalgonda District, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order by the trial Court. In default, the impugned order shall stand confirmed. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly. However, the trial Court shall take every possible step to have the suit decided on merits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible as the trial has been completed in all other respects by now to which the revision petitioner shall extend every cooperation. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 20-04-2011 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. B/O Ksn