ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the Order dated 12.05.2023 in I.A.No.440 of 2023 in O.S.No.12 of 2020 on the file of the Court of III Additional District Judge, Nellore.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. The petitioners herein are plaintiff Nos.4,5 and 7 in the said suit, which is filed for a decree of Specific Performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 11.04.2011 and for other reliefs.

4. The petitioners filed the above said I.A., under Order VII Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure to receive the report of Handwriting Expert. The 1st respondent filed a counter and the respondents 2 to 7 adopted the same. The learned Trial Judge after considering the matter, dismissed the application filed by the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as a document/Truth Lab Report was received after filing of the suit, an application seeking grant of leave for belated production of the said document was filed duly setting out the reasons for not filing the same along with the suit. He submits that the said document is crucial and important to substantiate the case of the petitioners/plaintiffs. He submits that the learned Trial Court instead of appreciating the matter in the right perspective and receiving the document, examined the matter with reference to the merits of the document, which is impermissible. He submits that the learned Trial Judge at the stage of receiving the document cannot go into the validity and genuineness of the same, but has to receive it subject to proof, admissibility and relevancy. The Order under challenge is not sustainable as the learned Trial Court gave findings on the merits of the document/documents and the same amounts to pre-judging the issue, he adds.

6. On the other the learned counsel for the respondents made submissions to sustain the Order under challenge.

7. This Court has considered the submissions made. The issue with regard to receiving of documents by the Trial Court needs no elaborate discussion. It is settled Law that at the stage of receiving the document, the relevancy, validity or otherwise, much less the merit of the document cannot be examined.(See: 2015 (3) ALT 575). 8. In Sudhir Kumar v. Vinay Kumar G.B.1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia held that at the stage of granting leave to place on record additional documents, Court is not required to consider the genuineness of the same.

9. In the present case, it would appear that the Trial Court has undertaken the exercise of examining the document at the threshold i.e., at the time of receiving the same, which is not tenable. The parties to the suit are at liberty to adduce oral and documentary evidence, according to their choice in order to substantiate their case. The question of relevancy or validity of documents, after they are tendered in evidence, shall be considered by the Court in accordance with law. The Court cannot embark upon to scrutinize or consider the legality or genuineness/merit of the same at the time of receiving them.

1 (2021) 13 SCC 71

10. Therefore, the Order under challenge is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. I.A.No.440 of 2023 stands allowed and the documents sought to be filed shall be received subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility. Further, the learned Trial Judge shall make endeavour to dispose of the suit expeditiously, within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

__________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date: 29.01.2024 BLV HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Civil Revision Petition No.2418 OF 2023 Dt: 29.01.2024 BLV