C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 19-2-2004 in LA. No. 27 of 2004 in o. S. Nol42 of 1999 on the file of Senior civil Judge at Narayanpet, filed by the respondents, who are the defendants in the suit, the plaintiff in the suit preferred this revision.

( 2 ) RESPONDENTS filed the aforesaid petition under Rule 1-A (3) of Order 8 read with 151 CPC to receive four documents alleging that the existence of those documents came to light when a search was being made in the house and that those documents could not be produced earlier for that reason and so they may be permitted to produce the documents, after condoning the delay in filing them.

( 3 ) REVISION petitioner filed a lengthy counter inter alia contending that the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer which is sought to be produced as one of the documents was set aside in appeal proceedings by the Revenue Divisional officer, who in the same proceedings imposed fine as the person who made entries in the revenue records and so there are no grounds to receive the documents.

( 4 ) THE Court below holding that the respondents could show sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the documents, allowed the petition and received the documents subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility. Hence, this revision petition.

( 5 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that respondents who ought to have produced the documents along with their written statement, having so failed to produce, created a false story and came up with this petition suppressing the fact that an appeal preferred against the order granting validation, which is sought to be produced as one of the documents, was allowed and thereby order sought to be produced stood set aside by the appellate authority and infact revision preferred against the order in appeal also was dismissed, and so it is clear that one of the documents sought to be produced is an order which is non-existing and so the Court below was in error in receiving the documents without considering the detailed counter filed by the revision petitioner. It is his contention that receipt of documents by the Court below tantamounts to marking of the documents and so revision petitioner would be put to great prejudice and hardship if the order under revision is allowed to stand and so the order under revision is liable to be set aside. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that the Court below having been satisfied that respondents property explained the reasons delay, received the documents subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility, and since did not commit any error in receiving the documents, the revision is not maintainable.

( 6 ) SINCE the written statement in the suit was filed long prior to 2002, and since rule 1-A of Order 8 CPC, which came into operation with effect from 1-7-2002, by virtue of coming into force of Act 46 of 1999, does not apply to the proceedings in the suit, because Section 32 (2) (1) of Act 46 of 1999 reads:"the provisions of Rules 1 and 1-A of order VIII of fee First Schedule as substituted or inserted by Section 18 of this Act shall not apply to a written statement filed and presented before the Court immediately before the commencement of Section 18. "

( 7 ) IN view thereof the petition presented by the respondents before the lower Court should be treated as a petition filed under Rule 2. of Order 13 C. P. C. , which was in force till the coming into force of Act 46 of 1999. As per Rule 1 of order 13 C. P. C. documents in possession or power of the parties have to be produced by the parties at or before the settlement of issues. If they are not so produced, Rule 2 of Order 13 C. P. C. (as it stood prior to the coming into force of Act 46 of 1999) empowered the Court to receive the same on a good cause being shown to its satisfaction for their non-production earlier.

( 8 ) I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for revis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document