ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 25.08.2023 passed in I.A.No.2108 of 2020 in O.S.No.367 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Addanki, Prakasam District, whereby petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14 (3) CPC seeking to receive petition schedule document viz. pattadar pass book, on to the record for the purpose of tendering the same into evidence.

2. Heard both sides.

3. Petitioner/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit against the respondents/defendant seeking permanent injunction. During pendency of the suit, petitioner/plaintiff filed the petition stating that he filed a photocopy of pattadar pass book issued by the Tahsildar, Korisapadu in respect of the plaint schedule property, along with the plaint, as the original thereof was filed before Bank at the time of obtaining loan by pledging the schedule property, and now, for the purpose of marking the said document, original thereof is being filed and accordingly it is prayed to receive the document by condoning the delay. The respondents/defendants filed counter in the I.A. denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. and stating that the petitioner/plaintiff filed e- passbook along with the petition, and the document now sought to be received is a new one obtained recently and hence, it cannot be received. By the impugned order, dated 25.08.2023, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge dismissed the I.A. on the ground that the code number of Pattadar Passbook and the e-Passbook now filed is different. Since the code number varies from the passbook and the e-passbook, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge dismissed the I.A.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that recently, E-pass book has been by the revenue authorities in respect of the plaint schedule properties and hence, original E-pass book has been filed along with petition to receive the same. He further submits that the said E-pass book relates to the plaint schedule property and hence, it is relevant document for the purpose of proving the case of the petitioner/plaintiff, but the trial Court erred in dismissing the petition on ground that code number of Xerox copy of the pattadar pass book filed along with the plaint and code of number of E-pass book now sought to be received, different though relates to the plaint schedule property. Hence, he prays to allow the revision.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents contended that petitioner filed e-passbook along with the petition, and the document now sought to be received is a new one obtained recently and hence, it cannot be received, and the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition.

6. The suit is filed for permanent injunction. Petitioner/

plaintiff filed photocopy of the pattadar pass book along with the plaint. The explanation offered therefor is that the original pattadar pass book was filed before Bank at the time of obtaining loan by pledging the schedule property, and now, for the purpose of marking the document, original thereof is being filed along with petition to receive the document by condoning the delay. Respondents/defendants opposed the same on the ground that it is a new document. The trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that code number on the photocopy of the pattadar passbook filed along with the plaint and code number mentioned on the e-pass book now sought to be received, is different though they relate to the plaint schedule property. There is factual foundation in the plaint with regard to the pattadar passbook. Code number on the pattadar pass book may vary because E-pass book has been issued in place of pattadar pass book. The code number of E-passbook would not be the same. But, it has to be seen whether it was issued for the plaint schedule property or not. Merely because the code number varies the said document cannot be brushed aside on the ground that e-Passbook document varies with