( 1 ) HEARD both sides.

( 2 ) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Senior Civil judge, Atmakur in allowing the LA. No. 106 of 2004 in OS No. 35 of 1995, filed under order VIII Rule 1-A CPC to receive a list of documents as evidence.

( 3 ) IT was stated in the affidavit filed in support of the said IA that the documents mentioned in the list were in possession of the first defendant and they could not be produced before the Court because the first defendant was no more. The third defendant, while checking the belongings of the first defendant, found the same and hence those documents were being sought to be received at a belated stage.

( 4 ) FURTHER, the learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends, firstly, that there is a procedure prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1-A; secondly, if the Court rejects to receive the documents, the same can be a ground in the appeal under Section 105 CPC and hence the court below erroneously allowed the IA.

( 5 ) IN this context, it is to be seen that in a suit for partition, the rights of all the parties have to be decided finally on merits. It is to be further seen that the defendants already