In leuaku Pedda Reddamma and Ors. vs In the light of ratio laid down by the Honble Apex Court

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affklavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further Proceedings in the OP No.53 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Family Court-Cum-XlV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge At Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.M.RAVI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: SRI SYED MOUNIS JAFER ABIDI The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALI I,TIETTY CTVIL REVISION <24 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved b ' the order, dated 11.O7.2O24, passed by the I Additional Far ily Court - Cum - XIV, Additional Metropolitan Sessions Courr., Hyderabad in I.A.No.80O of 2024 in O.P.No.53 of 2022, wheret'l and where under the application filed under Order VII Ruk 14 (3) r/w Section 151 of CPC and Section 14 iof Family O )urt Act to receive certain documents is dismissed.

2. Heard Sri G. M. Ravi Kumar, 'learned coul sel for the petitioner, no representation on behalf of responde rts, though Sri Syed Mounis Jafer Abidi, entered appearance r n behalf of respondent. Therefore, the matter is being dispos,t d of basing on the material available on record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner eerein hled O.P.No.53 of 2022 on the frle of I Additional Family ( )ourt - Cum - XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hy lerabad for declaration and consequential recovery of poss:ssion and damages. Respondent entered appearance and iled written st+tement and issues were framed, the trial conL: renced and \ 7 LNA, J CRP.No.2567 of 2021 PWl was examined. The matter came up for further evidence, at that stage, the petitioner filed the present application to receive the original construction agreement dated O 1.08.2016 and also ICICI Bank statement. The respondent flled counter resisting the said application.

3.1 The Judge, Family Court dismissed the said application vide impugned order dated 1L.O7.2O24 on tJle ground that the said document was not named and only the contents of the dccument show it as construction document and the value of document was Rs.4 Crores and in order to escape impounding of stamp duty, the petitioner came up with the petition to mark the document and thus, same cannot be entertained.

4. [rarned counsel for the petitioner would submit that impugned documents which are sought to be taken on record are mentioned in the List of documents in the O.P. and therefore, petitioner was not introducing any new document, in fact he is filing the original documents of the photocopies which were already liled along with the O.P. He would further submit that Judge, Family Court has erroneously dismissed the application on perverse observaLion with regard to impounding a.- 3 LNA, J CRl'. {o.2567 of 2021 starnp duty of the document which can. be gone int() at the time of marking of documents. Therefore, the impugn :d order is unsustainable and thus, prayed to allow the revisioll

5. Perusal of record would disclose that petitio: .er filed an application under Order VII Rule 14(3) seeking to receive the original construction agreement dated O 1.08.2O I 3 Bank statement which are mentioned at Serial Ncs and TCICI 8and9of list of documents of O.P and by wa54 of this app ication the originals of the same are sought to be taken on rec(rl

1. Further, the issue of payment of deficit or improper stamp ' luty can be adjudicated while marking documents, after the sa: on record and while considering an application tl said documents, the issue cannot be gone intc e are taken receive the , Learned counsel lor the petitioner fairly submitted that pt :itioner has not paid stamp duty and the petilioner is ready to pr y the same, once the document is taken on record.

6. ln A.P,La-lg Vs. Ourtann Ranna. Raol, this O rurt held as follows " [n view of the above position, in the absenr)i of any evidence as to the availability of a decision o[ ]re | 20 17 (61 ALD 300 4 LNA, J CRP.No-2567 of 2021 trial Court with regard to document in question as to its admission, tl:e application as f ed . by the defendant is maintainable and it is open to the plaintiff to pay the stamp duty and penalty as per the Rules and make a request to admit the same in evidence and it is for the Court to admit the document and mark the same. In view of the above legal position, the order under revision cannot be held to be erroneous and the Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.o In leuaku Pedda Reddamma and Ors. Vs. 7. Gottumukko'la Venko:ta Subbannma & Anr (Civil Appeal No.4096 of 20221, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that at the stage of accepting documents, the Court cannot go into the veracity or relevancy of the documents which can be gone into while adjudicating the matter and further held that to deprive a party to-the suit not to file documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice.

8. In the light of ratio laid down by the Honble Apex Court in the above judgment and also in view of the fact that the Photocopies of the documents which are sought to be taken on record were already filed along with the O.P and the petitioner is only seeking to place the originals of the said documents on record, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is unsustainable and the same is set aside. :i 5 I\A,J CRP.No.2567 a '2024 In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is a-llowerl and g. consequently, the I.A No'80 O of 2024 stands allowed' No c3 its'

10. Miscellaneous Petitions closed. No costs' pending, if anY, shall I tand '"'tt3[?iilIfl?tE'''-?I / .:-.P ,fTRUE COPYII SI GTION OFFICER to'n The r Additional Famiry court-cum-XlV Additional Metrorl rlitan sessions ' iris" At HYderaoao 2. One CC to Sri G'M Ravi Kumar' Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to Sri Syed Mounis Jafer Abidi' Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two cD coPies I tr HIGH COURT DATED:2 5l0l l2O25 ORDER CRP.No.2567 of 2024 7 i r,i:: Z ?. L;.i l\ dtr t) it:. ,.'.,t ;., 1 .+t-..: ' ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION Lq ffi"r 6