( 1 ) HEARD Sri M. Rajamalla reddy, learned Counsel representing the petitioners-defendants and Sri K. Govind, learned Counsel representing the respondent- plaintiff.

( 2 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioners aggrieved by an order made in LA. No. 143 of 2003 in O. S. No. 63 of 2000 on the file of Junior Civil judge, Siddipet. The revision petitioners filed the said application under Order 13 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity, the Code ) to receive the documents. The documents produced are the Municipal permission and plan dated 19-12-1978, certificate of ownership, dated 21-3-2003 and house tax payment receipts (ten in number) from 1991 to 2002. The learned junior Civil Judge at paras 7 and 8 had recorded the reasons and ultimately had dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision petition is filed.

( 3 ) SRI M. Rajamalla Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners- defendants would contend that these are all documents issued by the Municipality, a local body and in fact these documents are public documents within the meaning of section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The learned Counsel also submitted that it is no doubt true that after closure of evidence on the side of the plaintiff before the commencement of evidence on defendants side, the present application was filed to receive the documents in question. The mere fact that the documents were not specified in the written statement by itself may not be a ground. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the reasons explained in the affidavit filed in support of the application and had submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judge should have permitted the petitioners to rely on these documents which are having material bearing on the questions in controversy between the parties. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on Billa Jagan mohan Reddy v. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy, 1994 (3) ALT 41 (SC), and also in Gullipalli naram Naidu v. Kinthali Kumaraswami, 2003 (2) ALD 544 = 2003 (2) ALT 406.

( 4 ) PER contra, Sri K. Govind, the learned Counsel representing the respondent- plaintiff had taken this Court through the provisions of the Code, Order 13 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code as they stood prior to the Amending Act and subsequent thereto and also had explained the object of deletion of Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code and further explained Order 8 Rule 1 (A) of the Code in this regard. The Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to section 32 (P) of Act (46 of 1999) and also Section 23 of the said Act and had submitted that in the light of these provisions especially in view of the fact that these documents were not referred to in the written statement and they were produced at a belated stage before the commencement of the evidence on the defendants side, the learned Judge is well justified in dismissing the said application. The learned Counsel also maintained that these documents are not public documents and even otherwise, no good cause or sufficient cause had been shown and on that ground when an application for reception of documents was dismissed by the learned Judge, such order may not fall within the meaning of material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction and hence, the revision itself is not maintainable. The learned Counsel had placed strong reliance on Madanlal v. Shyamlal, (2002) 1 scc 535, and also in Palakurthy venkateswarlu v. Noroju Manorama, 2003 (1) ALT 231.

( 5 ) HEARD both the learned Counsel.

( 6 ) THE petitioners filed LA. No. 143 of 2003 in O. S. No. 63 of 2000 on the file of junior Civil Judge, Siddipet for reception of documents i. e. , Municipal Permission and plan dated 19-12-1978, Certificate of ownership dated 21-3-2003 and house tax receipts from 1991 to 2002 (10 in number) under Order 13 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code read with Section 151 of the Code. It is stated in the affi