HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4810 of 2009 Between: Nandamudi Satyam. ..... PETITIONER AND Nandamudi Lokeshunaidu & others. .....RESPONDENTS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4810 of 2009 ORDER: The order under revision was passed pursuant to an application filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3) C.P.C. by the petitioner-plaintiff in I.A.No. 311 of 2009 in O.S.No. 72 of 2004 requesting the Court to receive the original pattedar pass book, title deed and receipt dated 15.05.2007. The Court below, on verifying the pattedar pass book and title deed, observed that there was no date, month and year to show when it was issued to the petitioner; one white paper was affixed, underneath the photograph of petitioner’s pattedar pass book and title deed; page Nos. 2, 3 were affixed with gum in the pattedar pass book; in the title deed page Nos. 8 and 9 were only shown between pages 1 to 8 and the other pages were pasted; and the petitioner did not mention any reason why he kept the original pattedar pass book and title deed with him at the time of filing of the suit and had simply stated that he kept the pattedar pass book and title deed with him and was now filing the original pattedar pass book and title deed. With regards the cist receipt, the Court below took the document on file. Sri D. Ramalinga Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the genuineness or otherwise of the documents could not be gone into at the stage of receiving the documents; and the Court below could well have received the documents, subject to admissibility and proof. Sri A. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, while fairly stating that at the stage of receipt of documents the genuineness could not be examined, however contended that since the suit was of the year 2004, the application filed in the year 2009, to receive the documents, admittedly, in the possession of the petitioner-plaintiff was but yet another attempt to drag on the suit proceedings. The Court below erred in examining the genuineness of the pattedar pass book and title deed in the course of the adjudication of an application to receive the said documents. As this question ought not to have been examined by the Court below at this stage, I consider it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and direct the Court below to receive the documents 1 and 2, subject to admissibility and proof. Since this application was filed in the year 2009, in a suit relating to the year 2004, and it is not in dispute that these documents were always available with the petitioner-plaintiff, I consider it appropriate to allow the revision petition on the petitioner paying costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) to the first respondent herein within a period of three weeks from today, and on his furnishing proof of such payment to the Court below. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:22.02.2010 Note:Furnish copy within three days bo usd