THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2478 OF 2013

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-

defendant No.4 aggrieved by the order, dated 18.02.2013 passed in I.A.No.1991 of 2012 in O.S.No.488 of 2010 on the file of learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge at Warangal.

2. The Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit against the revision petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein seeking for partition and separate possession. Pending the suit, it appears that the petitioner-Defendant No.4 filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of C.P.C seeking to condone the delay in filing document dated 27.05.2007 and the property tax receipt, dated 14.11.2012 on the ground that he could not file the same before the trial Court as the same was misplaced in his house.

3. Respondent No.1/plainfiff filed counter denying the averments made in the petition and contended that the existence of the alleged documents were not mentioned in the written statement and that no valid and cogent reasons were made for non filing of the alleged documents at the time of filing of the written statement and there was no justifiable ground in granting leave to the petitioner to file the said documents.

4. The learned trial Court having taken into consideration the rival contentions of both the parties came to conclusion that all the documents shall be filed by the parties along with the pleadings and if at all the documents is not under power and custody of the party, that party shall have mentioned in the pleadings as to whereabouts of such documents. Filing of the documents without pleadings is impermissible and that such document was not received on the ground that it is at a belated stage and the tax receipt in question is the post document which is not having evidentiary value and dismissed the petition.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner/ defendant No.4 filed the present Civil Revision Petition contending that the said document, dated 27.05.2007 was pleaded by respondent No.2 in the proceedings of the suit even though the document was referred by the plaintiff and also admitted the fact that the document, dated 27.05.2007 which is now to be received by way of this petition was given by the plaintiff to the petitioner in many years back and he is in custody of the same but he could not filed by him because of the oversight which is misplaced at his home at that time. Recently could trace out the said document and filed the present application and prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

6. Though notice sent to respondents none appears and the name of the respondents also been published in the cause list. None appeared for the respondents.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner virtually and on perusal of the material on record, the only point that arises for consideration before the Court is “whether the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the petition and whether the petitioner has made out any ground to interfere with the said findings?”

8. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner could not file the subject document within the time for the reason that the same was misplaced and could not be traced out.

9. Admittedly the present suit is filed for partition and separate possession. The learned trial Court had dismissed the petition on the ground that the said documents were not pleaded by the defendants in the written statements filed by them. Whereas, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the said documents which the petitioner intends to prove on record were already discussed and the same was referred by the plaintiffs in the pleadings at paragraph No.3 of the plaint, which is also said to have been admitted by P.W.1 in his cross examination. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Judge ought to have taken the documents on record as it also goes into th