ORDER

Plaintiff in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 16.02.2022 in I.A.No.366 of 2021 in O.S.No.180 of 2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, East Godavari District.

2. Plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.180 of 2018 with the following reliefs:

a) to pass a usual mortgage preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sale of plaint schedule property for recovery of the suit amount with subsequent interest thereon till date of realization;

b) To grant such time as the Court pleases for redemption of the mortgage after the expiry of which, making the defendant debarred to redeem the same and direct the sale of the plaint schedule property;

c) to grant any such other relief as the Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

3. Defendant, while filing written statement, denied the execution of documents, and pleaded that defendant’s husband had some financial transactions with the plaintiff’s husband except that there is no other financial relation between them. The evidence of the plaintiff was completed. The defendant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination.

4. The defendant filed I.A.No.366 of 2021 under VIII Rule 1 (A) (3) of CPC to receive documents. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended that the documents sought to be filed are essential to prove her case. Those documents are in the custody of the respondent and her husband. Hence, the certified copies are filed along with the petition.

5. Counter was filed by the plaintiff opposing the application. It was mainly contended that there is no pleading about GPA or the sale deed in the written statement.

6. The trail Court by order dated 16.02.2022 allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed.

7. This court ordered notice. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice. The notice was served to the respondent. However, there is no appearance.

8. Heard Sri P. Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there is no plea in the written statement about these documents. The defendant, without making foundation in the written statement, sought to file those documents, which are not relevant to the suit transaction. The Court below failed to consider those aspects. He also would contend that the defendant failed to explain the relevancy of these documents with the suit transaction. However, without considering the documents, the trail court allowed the application.

10. The suit O.S.No.180 of 2018 was filed for recovery of amount based on mortgage. The defendant filed written statement and contended that there were transactions between the plaintiff’s husband and defendant’s husband and defendant did not execute the suit document. By filing I.A.No.366 of 2021, the defendant prays the court to receive copies of registered GPA, Khararunama, sale deed and encumbrance certificate.

11. As pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, there is no pleading about these documents in the written statement. The petitioner failed to explain the relevancy of these documents. However, that itself is not a ground to dismiss the application. In fact, the defendant pleaded the transactions between the husbands of the plaintiff and defendant. Relevancy of the documents will not be decided at the time of receiving the documents. At an appropriate stage Court will decide the same. 12. The Suit is coming up for defendant’s evidence. If the documents sought to be filed are marked, plaintiff will cross examine the witness. Trial Court, on a careful consideration, by a reasoned order, allowed the application. The jurisdiction exercised by the trail court does not suffer for any perversity or illegality. The trail court shall consider the relevancy and admissibility of these documents at an appropriate stage. There are no merits in the revision and the revision petition is liable to be dismiss