IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compliance with procedural rules regarding the introduction of evidence is essential, and failure to seek leave to file documents can result in their exclusion.

ORDER :

Petitioner/plaintiff filed this Civil Revision Petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Jangoan in I.A.No.80 of 2020 in O.S.No.33 of 2014, dated 19.02.2020.

2. Heard Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and R.K.Chitta, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. During the pendency of the revision petition respondent No.1 died and learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that except petitioner and respondent No.2 there are no other legal heirs.

4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

4.1 Revision petitioner herein is plaintiff and respondents are defendants in suit O.S.No.33 of 2014. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the Suit before the Court below.

4.2 Plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.33 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, Warangal District seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property on 01.05.2014, stating that the said property is joint family property and he is entitled share on par with defendants. Defendants have filed written statement on 22.12.2014 denying the averments made in the plaint inter alia contending that the plaintiff is not a joint family member of the defendants and he went as adopted son of Kanugu Yadagiri Goud when he is below one year of age and at the time of adoption, a ceremony was celebrated at house of his adopted father situated at Kolanupaka village under the persuasion of Bhadraiah priest. They further stated that plaintiff was brought up under the nourishment of Kanugu Yadagiri Goud and his study certificates establish the said facts. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any rights over the suit scheduled property.

4.3 In the above said suit, plaintiff has filed application I.A.No.80 of 2020, seeking permission to receive the Original DVD and Original Bill dated 17.07.2006 and to mark the above said documents on his behalf. The Court below dismissed the said application by its order dated 19.02.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the present revision petition.

5. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff contended that to prove and establish the claim of the plaintiff that he is the family member of defendants and his natural father performed his marriage, the documents filed along with application are very much required and by virtue of receiving the said documents, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants and the court below without properly considering the application and provisions of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, erroneously dismissed the application.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for defendant No.2 contended that the petitioner filed application in I.A.No.80 of 2020 to receive the documents i.e., DVD and original bill, after completion of cross examination by the defendants, to fill up the lacunas, without giving any reasons in support of the same.

6.1 He further contended that the plaintiff has not filed application seeking leave to file the documents as required under Order VII Rule 14 Sub Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) and has not made any averments about performing of his marriage by his natural father and about existing of DVD and original bill in the suit or in his chief affidavit and the plaintiff has filed the said application only to drag on the proceedings and the Court below has rightly dismissed the application and there is no illegality and irregularity in the impugned order.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.33 of 2014, seeking partition of Suit Scheduled property and allotment of separate possession on 01.05.2014 and defendants have filed written statement on 22.12.2014 denying the averments