IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that under Order VIII Rule 1(A) (3) of the Civil Procedure Code, a party must lay a satisfactory foundation and explain any delay when filing an application to receive documents, failing which the court may set aside the application.

ORDER :

Heard Sri G.Anandam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dasi Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/Defendant No.3.

2. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27.03.2023 in I.A.No.54 of 2023 in O.S.No.366 of 2017 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Narsampet.

FACTS OF THE CASE :-

3. The petitioner herein filed a suit vide O.S.No.10 of 2020 initially against the respondents 1 to 4 herein and late Smt. Kyatham Iylamma (Defendant No.2) seeking partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties therein. The said suit was filed in February, 2000 before the Senior civil Judge, at Warangal and it was assigned number as O.S.No.10 of 2000. On constitution of Junior Civil Judge Court at Narsampet, the said suit was transferred to the said Court on pecuniary jurisdiction and the suit number was re-assigned as O.S.No.366 of 2017.

4. Originally, the said suit was filed for partition and separate possession in respect of items 1 to 5 of the suit schedule properties. 1st respondent herein/D.3 and D.2 have filed written statement on 19.07.2000. Item Nos.1 and 2 of suit schedule – B property were added to the said suit and D.6 was impleaded. As per the order dated 29.06.2012 in I.A.No.68 of 2011. 1st respondent herein/D.3 filed additional written statement on 12.10.2012. when the said suit was posted for evidence of 1st respondent herein/D.3 and D.6, 1st respondent herein/D.3 filed Interlocutory Application vide I.A.No.54 of 2023 in O.S.No.366 of 2017 under Order VIII Rule 1(A) (3) of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC to receive original will deed (notarized) dated 16.06.2008 (Notarized) executed by K.Iylamm/D.2, mother of D.3 on the following grounds:-

i. D.2, mother of D.3 during her lifetime executed a will deed (notarized) dated 16.06.2008 in her favour in respect of item Nos.1 to 5 of suit schedule- A properties.

ii. D.2 died on 06.06.2008 and therefore, the said will deed came into force.

iii. During the course of trial of the suit, the Court was pleased to mark the documents on her behalf. On recording and closure of plaintiff evidence, learned Junior Civil Judge, Narsampet returned the plaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction as the plaintiff added suit schedule-B property by impleading D.6.

iv. The plaint was presented before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad for further proceedings.

v. After establishment of Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Narsampet, the suit was transferred to the said Court and the proceedings were commenced.

vi. The plaintiff and D.W.1 are well aware of the execution of the will deed by D.2, mother of D.3.

vii. The said fact was put to D.W.1 during the cross-examination by the learned counsel for the petitioner/D.3. The will deed dated 16.06.2008 was not filed before the Court and she noticed that the said will is required to submit for better adjudication of suit proceedings and it is an important document.

viii. The said document is relevant and crucial for adjudication of the said suit. If the same is not received, she will be put to irreparable loss and hardship.

ix. No prejudice will be caused to other side if the aforesaid document is received by the Court.

5. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff and the D.1 on the following grounds:-

i. The said will deed dated 16.06.2008 is forged and created one with afterthought in order to grab the suit schedule property.

ii. The said will deed is subsequent to the filing of the suit.

iii. It was prepared at Hanumakonda in collusion with District Notary, from Hanumakonda and Khazipet only.

iv. The said Notary was in violation of the rules applicable and D.3 created the same in collusion with the said District notary.

v. The suit was filed in the year 2000, whereas, the alleged will deed has been executed on 16.06.2008 i.e. after 8 years of filing of the suit.

vi. The properties mentioned in the alleged will deed does not belong to the executant i.e. D.2. She