COMMON ORDER:

The Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the orders dated

10.12.2019 in I.A.Nos.941, 942 & 943 of 2019 in O.S. No.180 of 2013 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, to reopen, recall of PW1 and receive the documents.

2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. The petitioner contends that suit was filed for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and for cancellation of sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of the defendant No.1 and for cancellation of decree passed in O.S.No.965 of 2005, in favour of the defendant No.1, by VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

3. It is contended that after filing of the chief affidavit and marking of the documents, it was noticed that the Xerox copies of the earlier decree and judgment in O.S.No.965 of 2005 were filed and it was objected by the defendants for marking of the same. Therefore, it is contended that he has applied for certified copies of the said documents, and after receipt of the same, they were sought to be filed through the subject application.

4. The respondents filed their counter objecting to the application contending that the plaintiff has applied for certified copies of the orders three (3) months after the matter was posted for arguments and that they were not parties to the said suit in O.S. No.965 of 2005.

5. The learned Judge dismissed the said applications, observing that when the matter was posted for judgment, the subject I.As, were filed for receiving of the documents. The learned Judge observed that as there is an inordinate delay in filing the applications, that too when the matter is posted for judgment, these applications filed for reopening and receiving, which cannot be accepted. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition.

6. Heard Sri N. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C. Venkaiah, learned counsel for the respondents.

7. It is stated that along with the plaint, the Xerox copy of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.965 of 2005 was filed. As the Xerox copies were objected to be marked at the time of trial, therefore, they have applied for the certified copies of the same and sought to be filed now. If they are not taken on record, the entire relief sought in the suit i.e., cancellation of judgment and decree will become redundant. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents while opposing the petition, relies on a decision of this Court in the case of Gullipalli Srinivasa Rao Vs. Kilapaarthi Anantha Lakshmi .

9. Considered the rival submissions. Perused the record.

Plaintiff’s evidence was closed on 11.10.2018, and that defendants’ evidence was closed on 25.10.2018. The application for certified copies was filed on 04.10.2019, and when the matter is posted for judgment, the petitioner came forward with the subject applications. As noted, the relief sought in the suit, inter-alia, is for cancellation of Decree in O.S.No.965 of 2005. Along with the plaint, the petitioner has filed Xerox copies of the said judgment and decree. In cases, where there is inordinate delay in filing the application and where the plaintiff fails to explain the delay for filing the documents at the appropriate stage, and for not being diligent, the applications are not normally entertained. However, having regard to the fact of the present case, one of the reliefs sought in the suit is for cancellation of judgment and decree and a Xerox copy of the same has been filed along with the plaint. If the petition is dismissed, one of the reliefs sought by the plaintiff becomes redundant. The judgment of this court, relied upon by the counsel for respondents is distinguishable on facts in as much as in the facts of the said case, plea regarding the existence of the document itself was not taken, nor had filed a registration extract of the document. In the light of those facts, this Court has observed “that the parties cannot be let off to give a go bye to