ORDER :

M. Venkata Ramana, J.

1. CRP No. 739 of 2019 is directed against the order of the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, at Kandukur, Prakasam District, in IA No. 1223 of 2018, and CRP No. 745 of 2019 is directed against the order in IA No. 1879 of 2018 of the same Court in OS No. 258 of 2013, dated 10.10.2018 and 4.2.2019 respectively.

2. In both these revision petitions, the third defendant is the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 6 are the plaintiffs while respondents 7 and 8 are the defendants 1 and 2 respectively.

3. IA No. 1223 of 2018 was filed in the suit for reception of certain documents sought to be produced by respondents 1 to 6 under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC and whereas IA No. 1879 of 2018 was filed purportedly under Section 36 of Indian Stamp Act to send the document dated 5.6.1974 to the District Registrar, Markapur, to impound and to collect stamp duty and penalty thereon.

4. In IA No. 1223 of 2018, the request of respondents 1 to 6 was to receive a letter alleged to have been executed by the vendor of the petitioner in favour of the vendor of the 4th respondent and the reason assigned for delayed production is that relief of declaration has been sought in the suit after amending the plaint and the letter stated above, has certain bearing in the matter and it is necessary to support the version of the fourth respondent.

5. Reception of this document was opposed on behalf of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the document was not filed alongwith the plaint, which is unstamped and unregistered. It was further contention of the petitioner that this document cannot be considered by the Court for any purpose and that source of securing this document is also not disclosed. Thus mainly urging, the petitioner requested the Trial Court not to receive the document.

6. Considering the material as well as the contentions of the parties, observing that any objection as to nature of this document could be raised at an appropriate stage and that opportunity should be given to the parties to let-in evidence, request of respondents 1 to 6 was accepted, allowing the petition.

7. The request of respondents 1 to 6 in IA No. 1879 of 2018 to forward the above document to the Collector under the Stamp Act, viz., the District Registrar, Markapur, was accepted inspite of stiff resistance from the petitioner almost on similar lines, which he had adverted to in IA No. 1223 of 2018.

8. Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the document in question could not have been received granting necessary leave and the observation of the Trial Court treating the document in question as 'relinquishment deed' and directing the District Registrar, Markapur to impound for collecting stamp duty and penalty, is not proper. Learned Counsel also relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court then at Hyderabad, in support of his contention, which shall refer to infra.

9. Sri Devarayalu, B.M., learned Counsel for respondents 2 to 6 supported the orders under revision.

10. Now, the following points arise for determination:

(1) Whether the leave granted by the Trial Court to receive the document in question, is justified?

(2) Whether the Trial Court is justified in forwarding the document in question to District Registrar, Markapur, with a specific direction to treat it as 'relinquishment deed', is proper?

11. As rightly observed by the learned Trial Judge in the order under revision, the parties should be given sufficient opportunity to produce all required evidence in support of their respective claims. Though they are required to produce the documents in support of their respective contentions at the trial of the matter and preferably before settlement of issues, in practice, instances always occur that the documents are produced by the parties at the time of the trial. On the above principle and in order to not to deny opportunity to the parties, reception of such documents is p