( 1 ) THE revision petitioners are the legal representatives of the plaintiff, one g. Sanjeeva Reddy, who filed the suit o. S. No. 341 of 1987 now on the file of the court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri for injunctive relief against the respondents herein, in respect of the suit schedule property. The original plaintiff died and the plaintiffs 2 to 5 were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased-sole plaintiff. The 3rd petitioner herein filed I. A. No. 2 of 2003 in the suit purportedly under Order VII rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the CPC") seeking leave of the Court to file a certified copy of the 10-1 revenue record.

( 2 ) IN the affidavit filed in support of I. A. No. 2 of 2003 the 3rd petitioner herein pleaded that the claim in the plaint is that the plaintiffs are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property; that the defendants have denied the plaint plea; that as the original plaintiff-the father of the deponent of I. A. No. 2 of 2003 was looking after the litigation, the deponent had no earlier knowledge about a mutation proceedings that had occurred resulting in an entry in the 10-1 extract; and that after having been impleaded as the plaintiff and legal representative of the original plaintiff he recently learnt about the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, applied for a certified copy of the mutation proceedings; a certified copy was issued on 3-1-2003; and as the said document is material for a decision in the injunctive suit, he seeks leave of the Court to file the document as it was not filed earlier.

( 3 ) THE Court below by the orderimpugned, rejected I. A. 2 of 2003. The Court below recorded that the 3rd plaintiff was brought on record in the suit as plaintiff consequent on orders dated 19-8-1993 in I. A. No. 393 of 1993 about nine (9) years prior to the present I. A. , that the trial had already commenced; the 3rd plaintiff examined in chief; that the exercise of discretion under sub-rule (3) of Order VII, rule. 14 is not to be as a matter of course; and that as the petitioner had failed to satisfy the court as to why the original plaintiff was unable to present the document along with the plaint, and no steps were taken even though the petitioners were brought on record more than nine (9) years prior to I. A. 2 of 2003, no reasonable cause existed or was established for exercise of discretion under order VII, Rule 14 (3 ).

( 4 ) THE provisions of the CPC, Order VII even as existed prior to the amendment in 1999 and 2002 require the plaintiff to state and file a list of all the documents upon which he seeks to rely in the suit. The legislative philosophy underlying this statutory requirement is that in the adversarial litigative paradigm, the opponent or defendant should not be taken by surprise and the plaintiff must disclose the broad documentary evidentiary platform on which the plaintiff s claim is projected. This requirement is no doubt not inflexible. A plaintiff could be permitted to bring on record a document subsequent to the filing of the plaint also but a reasonable cause must be shown. Order VII Rule 14 (3) as amended by the amendment Act of 1999 merely makes explicit what is inherent, namely that due care should be exercised by the Court and grant of leave by the Court is a condition precedent for bringing a document on record subsequent to the filing of the suit. If grant of leave were to be a mechanically act it was not necessary for the legislature to have invested a judicial authority with such a mechanical function. Exercise of discretion by the Court even in respect of a decision under Order VII Rule 14 (3) is a discretion circumscribed by legal principles and not one based on whim or caprice.

( 5 ) TRUE it is that in the case on hand the 3rd plaintiff came on record as a legal representative of his father-sole plaintiff in 1993 but then he inherits the merits and demerits, procedural or strategic which impinge

Click Here to Read the rest of this document