THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1736 OF 2011 22.09.2011 Between: Kona Satya Sai And others …Petitioners AND Saladi Sri Rama Lakshmi Tulasi And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1736 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioners are brothers. The first respondent (hereafter, plaintiff) is their sister. Respondents 2 to 4 herein, who are not necessary parties to the revision petition, are third party purchasers. The plaintiff instituted the suit in O.S.No.174 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, for partition of suit schedule properties. The defendants are contesting the suit inter alia contending that the suit schedule properties are self-acquired properties; they exchanged the properties inter se to suit schedule properties for the purpose of convenient enjoyment; original documents were exchanged between the parties; and therefore, the necessary notarized documents eight in number are necessary for resolving the issues in the suit. They prayed the Court to permit them to file eight documents. The same was opposed. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram dismissed the application holding that without laying foundation, the notarized documents cannot be received as secondary evidence, and that those documents are not admissible. Placing reliance on paragraph 9 of the Full Bench decision of this Court in L.A.O., Vijayawada Thermal Station v Nutalapati Venkata Rao[1], the counsel for petitioners would contend that the question of admissibility would not arise at the stage of filing of the documents. There is force in the submission. A reading of Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) would show that though defendant is precluded from producing the documents which ought to have produced at the time of filing the written statement, they can be produced with the leave of the Court. The Court has to apply proper discretion while passing orders, granting or refusing leave to the defendants to produce the documents. At that stage, the admissibility would not be a relevant factor though the Court may go into the question of relevancy of the documents to the fact in issue. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Court of Senior Civil Judge dated 16.03.2011 in I.A.No.141 of 2011 in O.S.No.174 of 2007 is set aside. The said I.A., stands allowed and the Court below shall receive the documents produced by the petitioners/defendants 2 to 4. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 22.09.2011 Pln [1] AIR 1991 AP 31 (FB)