S. Naveen Kumar v. N. Parvathi Bai

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT Civil Revision Petition No. 6096 of 2016 ORDER:

Defendants in O.S.No.450 of 2011 are the Revision Petitioners. The revision is directed against the order in I.A.No.618 of 2016, dated 15.10.2016.

2.

The Respondent herein filed I.A.No.618 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, under Order VII, Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure to receive the documents referred in the application by condoning the delay in filing the documents at earlier point of time.

The Revision Petitioners stoutly opposed the prayer to receive the documents. Through the order impugned in the revision, the trial Court allowed the application, however, granting liberty to revision petitioners to raise objections at the time of marking the documents.

3.

Mr.Gouda, counsel for petitioners, with vehemence assailed the findings recorded by the trial Court for receiving the documents by condoning the delay.

4.

I have perused the material available on record and the reasons stated in the affidavit, opposition of revision petitioners and the conclusions recorded by the trial Court. 5.

In considered view of this Court, having regard to the issues for decision, it appears that the trial Court permitted the Respondent herein to bring on record documents referred in the

petition. While granting permission, the trial Court has given liberty to Revision Petitioners to raise objections at the time of marking documents. As the impugned order under revision is virtually an order passed by the trial Court exercising its discretion and jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the order under revision.

6.

Thus, the Revision Petition fails, and it is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of revision shall not be understood as this Court expressing any other view on the liberty already granted by the trial Court to petitioners herein to raise their objections, available in law, as and when the documents tendered in evidence are marked.

7.

With the above observation, the Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ S. V. BHATT, J January 30, 2017 Kv

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT C.R.P.No. 6096 of 2016 January 30, 2017 Kv