COMMON ORDER:

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed aggrieved by the common order dated 20.07.2023 in I.A. No.482,483 and 484 of 2023 in O.S. No.48 of 2011 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Suryapet.

2. Since the parties in all these revisions are common and the point involved in these revisions is also one and the same, all these Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The parties herein are referred as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that respondent No.1/plaintiff already received her share and not entitled for any share in the suit schedule property. The documents sought to be filed now are certified copies of 13-(b) issued in favour of Anjamma, elder sister, certified copies of sale deeds, gift deeds and revenue records (dharani portal) which clearly prove that the daughters were already given their share and suit is misconceived. The documents were given to counsel but the same were not filed in this court and was noticed only at the time of arguments. All the documents are public documents and petitioner also referred the same in his written statement. The documents clearly show that the exclusive possession and enjoyment of petitioner. The delay can be compensated by awarding costs to respondent No.1/plaintiff. As the suit is for partition, the remaining defendants will also get share. Suit for partition has special features and all the parties like plaintiff or any party can file final decree petition, any number of final decrees can be passed, properties can be included even after preliminary decree, delay is not a matter in bringing legal representatives of parties or obtaining the final decree. The trial Court dismissed the applications on the ground of delay. Therefore, requests this Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.

5. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

6. The Suit vide O.S. No.48 of 2017 is filed for partition by respondent No.1/plaintiff/sister of the defendants. When the matter is posted for arguments, I.A. Nos.482, 483, 484 of

2023 were filed by petitioner/defendant No.1.

7. Defendant No.1 in his petitions contends that plaintiff is his elder sister and defendants No.2 to 4 are his younger sisters. He also filed written statement stating that his younger sisters were given land and they got mutation of their names in revenue records. The plaintiff collected certified copies of 13-B issued in favour of Anasuyamma and certified copies of sale deeds, gift deeds and revenue records and handed over the same to his counsel. But the said documents were not filed in the Court. The documents were very much relevant and important to resolve the disputes effectively. Therefore, requested the Court to receive the documents.

8. In the Counter filed by the plaintiff, she opposed the averments made by defendant No.1. She mainly contended that when the matter was at the stage of arguments, defendant No.1 came up with petitions at belated stage and the reasons stated by him for non-filing of the documents earlier is simply ‘mistakenly’ which is fanciful. It appears that he got prepared the documents and came up with these petitions.

9. The documents in which defendant No.1 is relying at not having any legal sancity and does not serve any purpose and not supporting the contention of the petitioner. They are totally irrelevant and they are no way helpful in favour of defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 failed to mention the nature of the documents i.e., whether they are sale deeds or 1-B Namuna etc., in the absence of such material the petition of defendant No.1 is not maintainable. The documents are filed only to harass the respondent/plaintiff. All the documents are registered documents in nature.

10. The trial Court observed that written statement was filed on 29.12.2017, but the documents were not enclosed along with written statement. The existence of the proposed docum