SAYYAD JAITUN Vs. SHAIK IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.181 of 2016 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sattenapalli for partition of the suit schedule property. At the stage of completion of the trial, the petitioner moved I.A.No.115 of 2024, under Order VII Rule 14 of C.P.C, for leave to produce 29 documents. This application was dismissed by the trial Court, by an order dtd. 18/6/2024.

(2.) Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) Sri M. Prakash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court had erred in dismissing the application on the ground that the petitioner had knowledge of these documents and had not given proper explanation for non production of these documents earlier. He would urge that the said finding would at best be applicable to the first three documents and that the other documents were not within the knowledge of the petitioner. He would submit that in such circumstances shutting out the petitioner from producing these documents would cause immense prejudice to the case of the petitioner in the suit. He would also submit that these three documents which the petitioner had kept aside to confront the defendant, the defendant came to give evidence and it is only upon the defendant submitting that the defendant would not examine himself, the present application came to be filed and the trial Court ought to have condoned the delay in filing the present application, due to the facts set out above.