← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaCRP/2535/2016dismissed

Vurumu Lakshmi Prasanna v. Vurumu Venkata Ramesh

2016-06-03C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy2 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2535 of 2016 Dated 03rd June, 2016 Between:

Vurumu Lakshmi Prasanna

...Petitioner

And Vurumu Venkata Ramesh

...Respondent

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.R.Srinivas Counsel for the respondent: --- The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 15.02.2016, in I.A.No.2305 of 2015 in O.P.No.62 of 2014, on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

The respondent has filed the above-mentioned OP for dissolution of marriage between himself and the petitioner. One of the grounds on which the respondent has sought dissolution of marriage was alleged adultery by the petitioner. The respondent has filed I.A.No.2305 of 2015 under Order VII Rule 14(a) of CPC for receiving four numbers of documents for being marked in evidence. The

petitioner has filed counter affidavit wherein she has denied the genuineness of the documents shown at serial Nos.1 to 4 in the petition filed by the respondent and pleaded that they are fabricated. She has also taken the plea that the said documents do not comply with the conditions contemplated under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. After hearing both sides, the lower Court has allowed the IA. While doing so, it has observed that I.A.No.2305 of 2015 was filed by the respondent only for the limited purpose of receiving the documents and that if the petitioner has any objection to the marking of the said documents, she can raise her objections at the time of the respondent tendering the same for the purpose of admitting them into evidence.

In my opinion, by merely receiving the documents by the Court, the interests of the petitioner are in no way affected. As observed by the lower Court, the petitioner shall be free to raise all legally permissible objections to the marking of the documents. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower Court. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

As a sequel to dismissal of the CRP, CRP.MP.No.3243 of 2016 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 03rd June, 2016 VGB