THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5365 OF 2009, CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5552 OF 2009, CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5567 OF 2009 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5570 OF 2009 Dated: 01.12.2009 Between: 1. Smt. Sharadamma and 2 others. … petitioners And 1. Smt. K. Rajyalakshmamma and 6 others. … respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5365 OF 2009, CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5552 OF 2009, CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5567 OF 2009 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5570 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: All these Civil Revision petitions arising out of the proceedings in O.S.No.18 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, are heard together and decided by this common order. The Revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit filed for partition of the plaint schedule property. The defendants / respondents herein contested the suit claim denying the rights claimed by the plaintiffs. After the entire trial was completed and the suit was posted for arguments, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.354 of 2009 to reopen the suit for giving further evidence of P.W.1, to mark documents and to summon witnesses stating that they could not file some of the very relevant documents to prove their case. They also filed I.A.No.355 of 2009 to receive in evidence the documents namely certified copy of 10 (1) account, registered copy of the sale deed dated 28.11.1985 and a Xerox copy of the partition list of 1970. Similarly another application being I.A.No.378 of 2009 was filed to receive the “publication made in Eenadu Daily Paper, dated 11.03.1999” claiming that it was a relevant document to substantiate their case. The plaintiffs also filed I.A.No.356 of 2009 under Order 18 Rule 17 of C.P.C. to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of giving further evidence by marking the above said documents in evidence. All the said applications were dismissed by the court below by separate orders dated 30.10.2009. Challenging the said orders, these four Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the plaintiffs. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material on record, I am unable to hold that the orders under Revision suffer from any patent error of fact or law warranting interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Order 7 Rule 14 of C.P.C. obligates the plaintiff to enter the documents relied upon by him in a list and to produce the same in the Court along with the plaint. If any such document is not in his possession or power, the plaintiff shall state in whose possession or power the document is. Rule 14 (3) of Order 7 further made it clear that a document which ought to be produced in the Court by the plaintiff along with the plaint but is not so produced shall not without the leave of the Court be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. In the present case, having not been satisfied with the explanation offered by the plaintiffs for their inability to produce the documents in question along with the plaint, the Court below declined to grant the leave. The said discretion exercised by the Court on application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal. Admittedly the suit is of the year 2001 and the applications in question have been filed at a belated stage when the suit is posted for arguments. In the circumstances, the Court below is justified in dismissing the applications and absolutely no justifiable ground is made out to interfere with the orders under Revision. Accordingly, all the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 01.12.2009 gbs