ORDER

Defendants 1 and 2 in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 04.08.2022 in I.A.No.142 of 2022 in O.S.No.108 of 2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda.

2. 1st Respondent/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.108 of 2013 against the revision petitioners and other respondent for partition of plaint schedule property.

3. Pending the suit, the revision petitioners filed I.A.No.142 of 2022 under Order VIII Rule 1 (3) and Section 151 of CPC to condone the delay to receive document i.e. (1) Photostat copy of acceptance letter dated 21.02.2003; (2) original house tax receipt 2019-20 dated 18.03.2020; (3) house tax receipt 2020-21 dated 01.02.2021 and (4) original house tax receipt 2021-22 dated 10.03.2022 and to mark them as exhibits.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended interalia that the gift deed executed by father of plaintiff in the year 2003 was marked as Ex.B-1, wherein it was mentioned that there was a partition in the year 1985 among father of plaintiff, grandfather of plaintiff and deponent, in which the father of plaintiff got the property covered under Ex.B-1; that father of plaintiff executed acceptance letter stating that Ac.1.00 cents is given to the plaintiff by registered sale deed under Ex.B-1 after demise of mother of plaintiff etc.; that original of said acceptance letter is in the custody of Ratna Kumari or plaintiff’s guardian and Photostat copy of the same is served to deponent; that name of deponent was mutated in the Panchayat records and has been paying taxes and hence, filed the application to receive the petition listed documents referred supra.

5. Counter was filed by plaintiff opposing the application.

6. By order dated 04.08.2022, the Court below allowed the application in part. The house tax receipts, three in number are received subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility. In respect of acceptance letter, the Court below declined to receive on the ground that acceptance letter dated 21.02.2003 is a Photostat copy, which is inadmissible as per law. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

7. Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for petitioners and Ms.K.Aruna, learned counsel for 1st respondent.

8. Whenever an application is filed to receive documents, if the Court is satisfied regarding the reasons assigned in the affidavit regarding non production of documents, the Court shall consider either to receive or to reject the documents. If the Court is inclined to receive the documents, the Court shall not go into relevancy and admissibility in proof of documents at this stage. The order directing the reception of the documents is entirely different from the order admitting the documents. The documents would be allowed to be accepted when the three other requirements are satisfied, namely, (i) the relevancy; (ii) the admissibility; and (iii) proof. Thus, those three requirements are not at the stage when the documents are sought to be produced before the Court, but at a later stage by showing good cause for non-production of the same earlier at the relevant time.

9. In Setti Siddamma vs. S. Ramulu and Ors.1, learned single Judge of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh held thus:

“This Court in K. Santha Kumari Vs. K. Suseela Devi: AIR 1961 AP 424, held that stamp duty in respect of an improperly stamped document filed in Court has to be considered at the time of admission of the document into evidence under proviso (a) to Section 35 of the Stamp Act and that the Court errs in ordering payment of stamp duty and penalty before the stage of admission of document in evidence is reached. So the question whether a document filed into Court is admissible in evidence or not, has to be considered only when it is sought to be introduced in evidence, but not when it is sought to be received by the Court. In this case, the Court below after having held that respondents have

1 2004 (5) ALD 14 = MANU/AP/0498/2004

shown sufficient groun