HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Rev. C.M.P.No. 2328 OF 2011 . In CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 565 of 2005 DATED 13th April, 2012. BETWEEN C. Sudhakar ……Petitioner/Appellant And Andhra Pradesh State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited, rep. by its Regional Manager, Ananthapur and anr ….Respondents/Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Rev. C.M.P.No. 2328 OF 2011 . In CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 565 of 2005 ORDER: This application under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is filed to review the judgment dated 25.11.2011 passed by this Court in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 565 of 2005. This Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 565 of 2005 through its judgment dated 25.11.2011 inter alia observing that the ex parte decree passed by the Court below was well within the knowledge of the applicant/appellant; and that the applicant/applicant did not choose to contest the execution proceedings even though sufficient time was granted; and that he did not evince any interest to honour the decree passed in the suit. In the present review application, the learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that this Court did not take into consideration the fact that the lower Court while dismissing the petition filed by the applicant to set aside ex parte decree took into consideration the unmarked documents namely 1) Note dated 20.9.2002 sent to the Senior Marketing Officer, Ananthapur by the Regional Manager, Ananthapur of the first respondent/plaintiff-company; 2) Circular dated 25.10.2005 issued by the Deputy Manager of the plaintiff-company for one time settlement; 3) Letter dated 4.11.2004 of the Regional Mnager of the plaintiff-company; 4) Copy of Certificate of Posting filed by the plaintiff comany; 5) An endorsement made on the circular against the direction dated 3.11.2004 of the Deputy Manager of the plaintiff-company. He submitted that the alleged unmarked documents cannot be looked into unless they are tendered, admitted in the evidence and marked as exhibits in the case. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Moran Mar Bascellos Catholics Vs.Mar Poulouse Athanasius (AIR 1954 SC 526), the judgments of this Court in U.Lakshmi Narayana Vs. Secretary to Government, Department of Survey and Land Records { 2010(5) ALD 91 (DB)}; APSRTC, Musheerabad Vs.Gousia Begum (2004 Anw.r.(2) 723), Lokara Om Kumar Vs. Baikan Satyanalrayana (AIR 2007 AP 3). Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that marking of documents as exhibits does not arise during the course of deciding the interlocutory application, more particularly in an application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and that those documents can be taken into consideration if the contents therein is not denied for the purpose of deciding the interlocutory application. Having heard the learned Counsel on either side and gone through the judgments cited above relied on by the learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant, I am of the view that this case does not attract the parameters of a review under the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. It is manifest from a reading of the order of the Court below that the first respondent/plaintiff had filed his objections to the petition instituted by the applicant under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC. Along with the said objections, it also filed the alleged documents to demonstrate that it had taken all the necessary steps to see that the decree is honoured by the applicant/appellant/Defendant No.1 and having failed in its endeavour to do so, it filed the Execution Petition and attachment order was passed on the drawing officer of the applicant. Further, marking of the documents at the interlocutory stage does not arise as this Court did find no provision in the Civil Rules of Practice to that effect. The Court below was of the specific view that the said documents were well within the knowledge of the applicant and but for his willful conduct or for any other reason best known to him, he did not object the said documents. This Court is of the considered view , having due regard to the Civil Rules of Practice that the documents can not be marked as exhibits at the interlocutory stage. I am fortified with my above view by the judgment of this Court in G.Sambrajyam Vs. P. Mahalakshmamma (1995 (1) ALT 305). Since the alleged documents had been filed along with the objections by the first respondent, the same would form part of the record. I have gone through the judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the applicant. It is true that during the trial of the proceedings, if the documents sought to be produced by either parties are inadmissible, there is no need to keep them in the record and in such cases the Court would not look into the same. But such is not the situation in the present case as the order passed by the trial Court was in an interlocutory application filed by the applicant herein. In APSRTC, Musheerabad Vs. Gousia Begum (referred supra) the issued involved therein was as to the reliable evidence on record relating to the date of birth for the purpose of awarding compensation under the MV Act, 1988. Therein, the Tribunal relied on a document which was not marked as an exhibit during the course of trial. Therefore it has no application to the facts of the present case. Similarly, in Lokara Om Kumar Vs. Baikan Satyanarayana (referred to supra) the question that was adjudicated and decided is as to whether a document not admitted in evidence and which does not form part of the record can be returned before conclusion of the suit to the party who produced such document. Considering the facts and circumstances of that case vis-à-vis the case on hand, it is clear that the said case has no application to the present facts situation. Further, the other precedential law relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case as those judgments came to be rendered considering the peculiar facts and circumstances involved therein, which are not identical and similar to the facts of the present case. Viewed from any angle, I do not see any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the impugned judgment. The Review application is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 13th April, 2012. Msnro