ORDER : GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s OMR Law Firm, for the Civil Revision Petitioner and Sri Rajesh Babu, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. The Petitioner herein is the Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.4 of 2018 on the file of Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu. The said Suit is filed seeking declaration of title and possession. The Petitioner/Defendant No.1 filed Written Statement on 30.04.2018. In Para No.5 of the Written Statement, the Petitioner/Defendant No.1 has made the following averment: “The plaintiffs mother Smt. P. Parvathamma who is none other than the daughter of N. Gurappa has purchased plot no.10 measuring Ac.0.05.7 cents with specific boundaries from the said Gurappa for valuable consideration by means of 'Sasvitha Vikraya Khararunama' dated 12.10.1986 and put her in possession and enjoyment of the same. Ever since from the said date the said P. Parvathamma was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said plot.” 3. It is stated at the bar that the Plaintiffs did not file any Rejoinder controverting the averments made by the Defendant No.1 as extracted hereinabove. After adducing the evidence by the Plaintiffs, got concluded that the Defendant No.1/Petitioner herein has filed I.A.No.76 of 2025 seeking following relief : “It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to order to send for the original document 'Sasvitha Vikraya Khararunama' dated 12.10.1986' in loan No.36949789771 from the State Bank of India, A.P.H.B Colony branch, R.T.O Office Road, Anantapuramu in the interest of justice”. 4. The averments in the Application would indicate that the 'Sasvitha Vikraya Khararunama' dated 12.10.1986 pertains to the Plaint Schedule Property i.e., Plot No.10 and the same has been submitted as collateral security by the Defendant No.1/Petitioner for availing loan bearing Loan No.36949789771. It is stated that the said document dated 12.10.1986 is an unregistered document. 5. The Defendant No.1, therefore, would seek a direction from the Trial Court to summon the document from the State Bank of India, A.P.H.B. Colony Branch, R.T.O Office Road, Anantapuramu with an intent to mark the same. 5.1 Sri Rajesh Babu, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 would oppose this Application stating that the Petitioner has filed I.A.No.76 of 2025 only to protract the litigation, and therefore, the said Application is an abuse of process. 5.1 Sri Rajesh Babu, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 would oppose this Application stating that the Petitioner has filed I.A.No.76 of 2025 only to protract the litigation, and therefore, the said Application is an abuse of process. He would also contend that the said 'Sasvitha Vikraya Khararunama' dated 12.10.1986 is admittedly an unregistered document, and therefore, the same cannot be marked in evidence and also no useful purpose would be served by summoning the said document. 6. Although the suit is filed in the year 2018, the occasion for the Petitioner to file an Application for summoning the 'Sasvitha Vikraya Khararunama' dated 12.10.1986 had arisen only when his turn of evidence came to be recorded. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the Petitioner has slept over in not filing the Application at a proper time. This apart, the opposition put up by Sri Rajesh Babu, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 that, no useful purpose would be served by summoning such document cannot be considered at this stage, inasmuch as such document is admittedly an unregistered document but its evidentiary value cannot be assessed or appreciated by the Court at this stage. 7. It is noticed by this Court that the Defendant No.1 had very clearly averred in Para-5 of the Written Statement, which is usefully extracted hereinabove, about the presence of this document titled as 'Sasvitha Vikraya Khararunama' dated 12.10.1986. The Defendant No.1, therefore, has already laid a foundation about the existence of this document in the Written Statement and that the same is now deposited with State Bank of India as a collateral security for the loan availed by the Defendant No.1. 8. Having considered these facts, this Court is of the view that the reasoning rendered by the Trial Court in dismissing the I.A.No.76 of 2025 is incorrect. Therefore, the Order passed by the Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu dated 16.06.2025 in I.A.No.76 of 2025 in O.S.No.4 of 2018 is set aside. At this stage, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything as regards the admissibility of the said 'Sasvitha Vikraya Khararunama' dated 12.10.1986, as the same is left to the Trial Judge to consider on merits. 9. With these observations, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed.No order as to costs. 10. At this stage, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything as regards the admissibility of the said 'Sasvitha Vikraya Khararunama' dated 12.10.1986, as the same is left to the Trial Judge to consider on merits. 9. With these observations, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed.No order as to costs. 10. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.