COMMON ORDER: B.S.Bhanumathi, J. All these revisions are filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders, dated 02.01.2025, dismissing I.A.Nos.661 of 2024, 660 of 2024, 659 of 2024 and 722 of 2024 respectively in O.S.No.73 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. 2. C.R.P.No.464 of 2025 is filed against the order, dated 02.01.2025, dismissing I.A.No.661 of 2024 ; C.R.P.No.465 of 2025 is filed against the order, dated 02.01.2025, dismissing I .A.No.660 of 2024 ; C.R.P.No.466 of 2025 is filed against the order, dated 02.01.2025, dismissing I.A.No.659 of 2024 ; and C.R.P.No.467 of 2025 is filed against the order, dated 02.01.2025, dismissing I .A.No.722 of 2024 3. The plaintiff filed these applications for the following reliefs: (i) I.A.No.661 of 2024 under Order VII rule 14 and Section 151 CPC to receive the schedule documents on behalf of the plaintiff; (ii) I.A.No.660 of 2024 under Order XVIII rule 17 and Section 151 CPC to recall PW1 / plaintiff for marking of documents on his behalf; (iii) I.A.No.659 of 2024 under Section 151 CPC to reopen the plaintiff’s evidence for summoning the witness and mark additional documents on his behalf; and (iv) I.A.No.722 of 2024 under Order XVI rule 1 and 5 CPC and Section 151 CPC to summon the petition schedule witness to give evidence in the above case on behalf of the plaintiff 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The case of the revision petitioner/plaintiff in support of his case, briefly stated, is as follows: a. The plaintiff and the defendants are family friends. The 1 st defendant is the son and the 2 nd defendant is his mother. Both the defendants jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.26,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 01.07.2016 at Kurnool for family necessities and executed a self scribed pronote in favour of the plaintiff on the same day promising to repay the pronote amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. As the defendants failed to pay the amount borrowed, the present suit in O.S.No.73 of 2019 was filed. b. The 1 st defendant as DW1 deposed that the sister of the plaintiff, Sai Sree and the 1 st defendant are classmates at G. Pulla Reddy Engineering College, Kurnool, and that he frequently used to go to the plaintiff’s house. As the defendants failed to pay the amount borrowed, the present suit in O.S.No.73 of 2019 was filed. b. The 1 st defendant as DW1 deposed that the sister of the plaintiff, Sai Sree and the 1 st defendant are classmates at G. Pulla Reddy Engineering College, Kurnool, and that he frequently used to go to the plaintiff’s house. However, he denied borrowal of the amount of Rs.26,00,000/- from the plaintiff and execution of promissory note. According to the plaintiff, the 1 st defendant had borrowed the amount of Rs.26,00,000/- and executed a promissory note and also an undertaking agreement on Rs.100/- worth non-judicial stamp paper on 06.07.2017. Therefore, I.A.No.661 of 2024 was filed to receive and mark the additional schedule documents. c. The schedule of documents sought to be received is as under: 1. Original Indian Non Judicial Rs.100/- stamp paper executed on 06.07.2017 between Golla Karthik Yadav(D1) and Sai Sree(sister of plaintiff); 2. Certified copies of sale deed document No.4009/2009, dated 19.08.2009, document No.4010/2009, dated 19.08.2009 purchased by defendant No.2; 3. Original police complaint before Gachibowli Police Station, Hyderabad, given by Sai Sree (sister of plaintiff) d. The defendants 1 & 2 filed separate counters denying the petition averments and contending as follows: The petition is not maintainable and it is intended to fill up the lacunae and to drag on the matter. If the alleged documents are already in the custody of the plaintiff, he ought to have filed the same and non-filing of the same in evidence earlier shows that the alleged documents were created for the purpose of the suit. Even otherwise, the alleged documents have no nexus to the suit. There are no bona fides in filing the petition. The petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. The trial Court, after hearing both parties, dismissed the petition in I.A.No.661 of 2024 observing that the petition schedule documents have no relevancy to the suit claim. Since I.A.No.661 of 2024 to receive the schedule documents is dismissed, I.A.No.660 of 2024 to recall PW1/ plaintiff for marking the documents on his behalf was also dismissed. 6. The trial Court, after hearing both parties, dismissed the petition in I.A.No.661 of 2024 observing that the petition schedule documents have no relevancy to the suit claim. Since I.A.No.661 of 2024 to receive the schedule documents is dismissed, I.A.No.660 of 2024 to recall PW1/ plaintiff for marking the documents on his behalf was also dismissed. Further, I.A.No.722 of 2024, which was filed to summon the witness to give evidence, was also dismissed holding that no evidentiary value can be attached to the document sought to be summoned and the alleged undertaking has no nexus to the suit promissory note, and therefore, there are no grounds to summon the witness, Sai Sree (sister of plaintiff). Since I.A.No.661 of 2024 and I.A.No.722 of 2024 were dismissed, I.A.No.659 of 2024 was also dismissed, as there is no necessity to reopen the evidence of the plaintiff. 7. Hence, the plaintiff preferred these revision petitions. 8. While reiterating his pleaded case, the plaintiff further urged in the grounds of revision that the relevancy and evidentiary value of the document(s) cannot be decided at the time of receiving the document(s) and admissibility of the document(s) must be determined only during the course of trial. 9. Since all these revisions are inter-connected, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proposed documents are necessary to prove the case in support of the plaintiff and that they could not be filed earlier as it is only during the cross-examination of DW1, the necessity to file these documents arose. He further submitted that though it is not specifically narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition the purpose of filing each document separately, technicalities should not come in the way of rendering justice and all such documents material to establish the case shall be allowed to be filed by using the discretion of the Court in the interest of justice to decide the matter on merits. 11. In this regard, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions of this Court: (i) Shaik Raheem Basha Vs. Ponduri Siva Prasad Bujji and others , 2024 SCC Online AP 1941 (ii) A. Venkata Ramudu and others Vs. A. Madi Reddy and others , 2024 SCC Online AP 1299. (iii) T. Venkata Vijaya Lakshmi Vs. 11. In this regard, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions of this Court: (i) Shaik Raheem Basha Vs. Ponduri Siva Prasad Bujji and others , 2024 SCC Online AP 1941 (ii) A. Venkata Ramudu and others Vs. A. Madi Reddy and others , 2024 SCC Online AP 1299. (iii) T. Venkata Vijaya Lakshmi Vs. Kodali Rayana Rao , 2024 SCC Online AP 3500. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no pleading in support of the documents proposed to be filed, and moreover, nothing was stated in the affidavit as to why these documents are necessary. He further submitted that in the absence of reason for not filing these documents earlier, for mere asking sake, the relief cannot be granted. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Ravi Satish Vs. Edala Durga Prasad and Others , 2009 (60) Civil CC (A.P) (ii) Kottakota Lakkappa and five others Vs. B. Lakkappagari Chikkaiah and six others , C.R.P.No.4776 of 2016, dated 18.08.2023 (APHC) 13. He further submitted that the petitioner filed the petition at the stage of arguments, that too, without any apparent reason for not filing these documents at the earliest opportunity. Referring to the decision of this Court in Kottakota Lakkappa (5 supra), he submitted that this Court declined to grant leave to file the documents even when the documents were shown in the list along with the pleadings but failed to file them by following the decision of this Court in Ravi Satish (4 supra). 14. It is apropos to excerpt Order VII rule 14(3) CPC hereunder: “14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies :- (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.” 15. In Shaik Raheem Basha (1 supra), it was held at para No.10 as follows: “While considering a petition under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC, the discretion given to a Court to grant leave should be judiciously exercised, since no restrictions are imposed by the provision itself and it cannot be construed as an unbridled discretion. In the light of the aforesaid case law, this Court is of the view that in the present case, a liberal approach can be adopted to give permission to the petitioner so as to allow all the necessary evidence to be placed before the Court for adjudication of the matter on merits rather than preventing the evidence on technical grounds. However, for the inconvenience caused to the first respondent, some reasonable terms can be imposed while allowing the petition. The trial Court has, by adopting pedantic approach, declined to grant leave. Therefore, the order needs to be interfered by allowing this petition.” b) In A.Venkata Ramudu (2 supra), it was held at paras 11 and 12 as follows: “11. Since the present application is to permit the petitioners to file the proposed document in evidence, this Court has to see whether such a permission can be granted or not. Mere granting permission to file a document does not amount to acceptance of the veracity of the contents of the document. It is not the stage to go into evaluation of the evidence sought to be produced through that document. Even if genuineness of a document is denied by the other side objecting to receive a document in evidence as forged document, the same cannot be a ground. It is a matter of appreciation of evidence. It is not the stage to go into evaluation of the evidence sought to be produced through that document. Even if genuineness of a document is denied by the other side objecting to receive a document in evidence as forged document, the same cannot be a ground. It is a matter of appreciation of evidence. Therefore, what is required to be seen is whether the petitioners could show reason for not filing the same earlier. Here in the present case, the petitioners contended that it was not traced earlier and now the third plaintiff has given the same document. Material alteration by itself does not render a document unbelievable. But, on appreciation of all facts and circumstances, the genuineness or otherwise of the entry can be decided. It is open for a party to prove such an entry is genuine or by the other party that such entry is ingenuine. 12. In the light of the decision in Rajah R.V.G.K. Ranga Rao and Ors. Vs. Nizams Sugars Limited, [MANU/AP/0858/2003] , instead of throwing the evidence on mere technicalities, Court should make always effort to receive the evidence on record and appreciate the same and if at all the evidence is found to be concocted, Court is always at liberty to reject consideration of that evidence. Therefore, instead of making an observation about the content of the document in the proposed document, the permission can be given by imposing certain terms for the delay causing inconvenience to the respondents. It is reiterated that the respondents are at liberty to contend that the document is not genuine and that it does not establish the fact which is proposed to be evidenced through that document, when the turn comes later at the trial. At this juncture, it is sufficient to permit the document to be filed in evidence, subject to its proof during the course of the trial. The trial Court also has to evaluate the document in the light of the settled principles of law of appreciation of evidence during the course of the trial, but not at this juncture.” c) In T. Venkata Vijaya Lakshmi (3 supra), it was held at paras 4, 8 and 9 as follows: “4. The trial Court also has to evaluate the document in the light of the settled principles of law of appreciation of evidence during the course of the trial, but not at this juncture.” c) In T. Venkata Vijaya Lakshmi (3 supra), it was held at paras 4, 8 and 9 as follows: “4. While so, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1337/2023 to call for the certified copy of index documents volume No.1598 for document bearing No.1047 under which the plaintiff’s father said to have purchased the suit property from Bandi Kondaiah. The trial Court having observed that the defendant can raise objection at the time of marking of document with regard to the admissibility and relevancy, allowed the petition. Hence the C.R.P. 8. POINT: The impugned order shows that the trial Court observed that the documents which are sought to be received i.e., certified copy obtained from Joint Sub Registrar, Vijayawada are the documents which are relied upon by the plaintiff in the suit and they are said to be connected to the Ex.P1 to P3. The trial Court further observed that mere receiving of the documents, would not cause any prejudice to the defendant, inasmuch as, the plaintiff has to prove the documents and the defendant can raise objections as to the admissibility, relevancy and proof. On such consideration the trial Court allowed the petition. 9. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity because the trial Court explicated that mere according permission to the plaintiff does not mean that the documents are accepted to be true and the plaintiff has to prove the relevancy and genuinity of those documents and the defendant can question the same. Therefore, there are no merits in the petition. …….” 16. In Ravi Satish (4 supra), it was held at paragraph No.11 as follows: “11. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1A of Order VIII permits the documents to be received only on leave being granted by the Court. Grant of leave is not for the mere asking, nor is the Court a mere Post-Office to receive documents even in the absence of any reasons being furnished for failure to file the said documents along with the written statement. Grant of leave is not for the mere asking, nor is the Court a mere Post-Office to receive documents even in the absence of any reasons being furnished for failure to file the said documents along with the written statement. Admittedly, in the case on hand, no reasons whatsoever have been furnished by the petitioner, let alone adequate cause been shown as to why the documents, which were the subject matter of the application, could not be filed earlier along with the written statement. Having chosen not to give any reasons, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the Court below should have received the documents, since the petitioner's right could be adversely affected for failure on its part to receive the documents. While it is no doubt true that admissibility and proof of documents are matters which ought not to be gone into at the time of receipt of documents, the fact, however, remains that the leave sought for can only be granted on adequate reasons being furnished justifying failure on the part of the applicant in not filing the documents along with the written statement earlier. The contention that no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the respondent/plaintiff has been rejected by the Court below on the ground that their right to file rejoinder based on the said document had been denied. The Court below has not committed any jurisdictional error nor has its order resulted in such manifest injustice as to necessitate interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I see no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Court below.” The above said decision was followed in Kottakota Lakkappa (5 supra). 17. In each case, the merit in the relief claimed shall be examined. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs.26,00,000/- with interest basing on the promissory note allegedly executed by the respondents on 01.07.2016 and it was self scribed. According to the plaintiff, both the respondents jointly borrowed the said amount from the plaintiff. 17. In each case, the merit in the relief claimed shall be examined. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs.26,00,000/- with interest basing on the promissory note allegedly executed by the respondents on 01.07.2016 and it was self scribed. According to the plaintiff, both the respondents jointly borrowed the said amount from the plaintiff. The document No.1 proposed to be filed is a handwritten letter on a stamped paper allegedly executed by the 1 st respondent referring to the previous disputes between the petitioner and the 1 st respondent in relation to the issue of sister of the petitioner and also the alleged borrowal of amount of Rs.18,00,000/- from the petitioner and Rs.8,00,000/- from the mother of the petitioner undertaking to return the same. The letter does not reflect any date of execution but it bears the date ‘06.07.2017’ as the date of purchase of stamp worth Rs.100/-. First of all, there is no reference of this transaction, i.e., letter of undertaking being executed by the 1 st respondent as per the pleadings in the plaint which was filed subsequent to the date on this document. 18. Nextly, according to the plaintiff, the total amount of Rs.26,00,000/- was jointly borrowed by the defendants from the plaintiff alone, whereas the undertaking in the proposed document speaks of borrowing Rs.18,00,000/- from the plaintiff, Rs.8,00,000/- from his mother. Therefore, it is not in consonance with the pleading in the plaint. Then, it is not known for what purpose, the plaintiff wishes to file this document. Merely because there are some transactions between the parties, it is not relevant to the case on hand unless there is nexus between the suit transaction and the other transaction which is sought to be established. First of all, the affidavit does not speak about the relevance of this document as an undertaking relating to the present suit transaction and also as to why it was not previously referred in the plaint or filed earlier. 19. First of all, the affidavit does not speak about the relevance of this document as an undertaking relating to the present suit transaction and also as to why it was not previously referred in the plaint or filed earlier. 19. Insofar as the other documents, i.e., sale deeds are concerned, there is no mention as to how these documents are relevant to the case in the suit, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner, even without taking a ground in the revision, argued that these documents are intended to establish the capacity of the defendants which is the reason for lending so huge amount to the respondents believing their capacity to repay. 20. First of all, this fact is not in issue nor was it raised in any form. Except the oral submission, there is no foundation in the petition or the pleadings about the need to grant to leave to file the documents at this juncture. 21. Regarding the third document, i.e., police complaint is concerned, it is in relation to the document No.1. 22. Thus, the petitioner has not made out any case to grant leave to file these documents at this juncture in the present suit. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the order impugned of the trial Court. Consequently, as no leave is granted for filing the document, the other reliefs which are required consequent upon granting leave to file the documents are not necessary to be allowed. 23. Accordingly, all the revision petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.