This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 02.12.2014 in O.S.No.94 of 2010 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet.

The petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The suit was filed for possession over the suit plot of an extent of 2281.5 square feet out of Survey No.122 of Chityal Village and Mandal in Nalgonda District. The issues in the suit were framed on 27.01.2014. The plaintiff filed an affidavit in lieu of chief examination on 19.03.2014. The plaintiff filed the documents on 30.04.2013. Out of the said documents, during the course of evidence of P.W.1, Exs.A6 to A10 were already marked. When the plaintiff sought to mark the memorandum of understanding dated 21.10.1980, which was shown at serial No.6 of the list of documents filed on 30.04.2013, the defendant raised an objection for marking the document stating that the same was not mentioned by the plaintiff in his plaint and he should not be permitted to mark the document without pleading the same in his plaint. The trial Court overruled the objection stating as follows:

“At the time of marking a document, the court will not go into the merits of the document, it is only concerned, as to whether requisite stamp duty is paid, if the document is to be compulsorily registered, it will verify, whether the document is registered or not, and whether the document is relevant to the facts of the case and will be helpful to the court to adjudicate the matter between the parties effectively.

Here, it is pertinent to note that, “mere marking of document is not proof of its contents” the burden of proving the contents of the documents lies on the party seeking to mark the document. At this juncture, the court is not inclined to look into the nature of document, relevancy of the document, whether the same is disclosed in the pleadings or not, the probative value of the document. As the same, shall be decided at full fledged trial of the suit.”

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that, even at the time of marking of the document, the relevancy of the document has to be looked into by the Court and it cannot be postponed. He relied on Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, the Evidence Act), and Order VII Rule 1 read with Order XIII Rules 1 to 3 and 7 of CPC in support of his contention. He relied on National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad (AIR 2012 SC 264), Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P. Joshi (2011) 11 SCC 786), G. Sanjeeva Reddy v. Indukuru Lakshmamma (2006 (3) ALT 66), R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswarni (2003) 8 SCC 752 : AIR 2003 SC 4548), Nori Srirama Sastri v. Nori Lakshmidevamma (AIR 1957 AP 60), Balaji Adithi v. Baddam Chandra Reddy (2004 (2) ALD 507) and Musammat Sumitra Kuer v. Ram Kair Chowbey (1921 PAT 61).

Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the admissibility and non-admissibility of document or its relevancy need not be decided at the stage of marking the document, and it can be decided during the trial of the suit.

The issue relating to the method and manner of production of documents, the stage of objection to be raised against such documents, and the proof of documents has been troubling the Courts on a number of occasions. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on Order VII Rule 14 read with Order XIII Rules 1 to 3 and 7 of CPC, there are other provisions in CPC, which deal with the issue relating to documents. Apart from the provisions in CPC, Chapter X of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1980 (for short, Civil Rules of Practice), deal with documents.

Rule 14 of Order VII CPC enjoins upon the plaintiff to produce a list of documents along with the plaint if he wants to rely on any documents. If he is not in possession of any document, he shall state in whose possession or power it is. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 specifically states that a document which ought to be produced in Court by t