( 1 ) ESE two Civil Revision Petitions can be disposed of by a common order for they arise of two different interlocutory orders passed in the same suit being O. S. No. 37 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili.

( 2 ) C. R. P. No. 3818 of 2002 is directed against the order dated 14-8-2002, passed by the Junior Civil Judge allowing the application, filed by the plaintiff-respondent in I. A. No. 485 of 1999, under Order XIII, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short cpc ) for receiving the registered sale deed, dated 12-10-1988, namely the original of Ex. A1. While C. R. P. No. 3819 of 2002 is directed against the order dated 14-8-2002, passed by the Junior Civil Judge allowing the application, filed by the plaintiff-respondent in I. A. No. 486 of 1999, under Order XVIII, Rule 17, CPC for recalling P. W. 1 for marking the registered sale deed dated 12-10-1988.

( 3 ) IN the affidavits filed in support of the aforementioned applications, it is stated by the plaintiff-respondent, that his father was examined as P. W. 1 on his behalf. At the time of examination of P. W. 1, he could not file the original registered sale deed dated 12-10-1988 because the same was misplaced, and despite his due diligence, he could not trace it. Therefore, he filed the certified copy of the original registered sale deed, which was marked as Ex. A1. Now that the original registered sale deed has been traced, and in view of the fact that the said document is very crucial to prove his title over the suit schedule property, he prays that the said document be received, and P. W. 1 be recalled for marking the same in evidence.

( 4 ) THE defendant-petitioner resisted the aforementioned applications contending that the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 12-10-1988 was marked as Ex. A1 through P. W. 1 under protest, that when the trial was concluded and arguments as regards the admissibility and evidentiary value of Ex. A1 were heard, and the matter posted for judgment, the plaintiff-respondent filed the present applications with a view to fill up the lacuna in their evidence, and if the original registered sale deed is received, and P. W. 1 recalled for marking the said document, it would cause prejudice to him. He, therefore, prayed, that the applications be dismissed.

( 5 ) UPON hearing the rival contentions, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, by reason of the orders under revision, allowed the applications holding that the reasons assigned by the plaintiff-respondent in support of the applications, are convincing. Since the certified copy of the original registered sale deed, was already filed as Ex. A1, and the original registered sale deed, now sought to be filed is only a replacement of Ex. A1, no prejudice would be caused to the defendant-petitioner, if the said document was received.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-defendant submits that as the amended provisions of CPC do not provide for filing of documents at the stage of arguments, the applications filed by the plaintiff-respondent for receiving the original registered sale deed in evidence and for recalling P. W. 1 for marking the said document in evidence, ought not to have been allowed by the Court below, and more so when the reasons for not filing the said document at an earlier stage, are not disclosed.

( 7 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent contends that the original registered sale deed was misplaced and despite his due diligence it could not be traced. Since the certified copy of the original registered sale deed, was already received in evidence through P. W. 1 as Ex. A1, the original registered sale deed, now sought to be filed, being only a replacement of Ex. A1, certified copy, the Court below has rightly allowed the applications, filed by him to receive the document and recall P. W. 1 for marking the same in evidence, and more particularly when