The question, which arises for consideration in all these five revision petitions, is whether the Court below is required, under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, to receive documents despite absence of cause being shown by the applicant.

2. It would suffice, for the purpose of disposal of these five revision petitions, if the facts in C.R.P. No. 712 of 2009 are noted. The respondent herein filed O.S. No. 687 of 2004 to set aside cancellation of the sale deed executed earlier. The petitioner herein i.e., the defendant in the suit, filed I.A.No. 1828 of 2008 requesting the Court below to receive certain documents which he had failed to file along with his written statement. The respondent herein opposed such a request contending that the petitioner herein had not given any cogent reasons for not filing the documents, which are filed now, at the appropriate stage and, therefore, the said application was not maintainable.

3. The Court below, in its order dated 17-11-2008, observed that the petitioner had not stated any reasons in his affidavit for not filing the documents, which he intended to file along with this application, at the time when he filed the written statement and that the affidavit was silent as to in whose possession the documents were at the time when the written statement was filed. The Court below noted that the documents filed by the petitioner were not intended for the purpose of refreshing his memory nor for cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, that the documents filed by the petitioner consisted of the final reminder notice dated 22-08-2003, office copy of caveat petition dated 03-12-2003, acknowledgement card dated 08-12-2003 etc., as intimation of cancellation of the sale deed dated 01-11-2003, and certified copy of the judgment in 0.S.No.559 of 2002 obtained on 04-07-2003. The Court below observed that all the documents related to the period prior to filing of the suit, which was filed on 29-12-2004 and, since the petitioner (defendant No.1) had failed to mention any reasons for withholding those documents from being filed along with his written statement and, considering that the respondent/plaintiff had lost the opportunity to file his rejoinder in respect of the documents relied upon by the petitioner, the petitioner was not entitled to file documents at that stage. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

4. Sri K. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, does not dispute the fact that the affidavit, filed in support of the I.A., does not disclose any reason for failure on the part of the petitioner/defendant to file the said documents along with his written statement. It is, however, contended that, even in the absence of any reasons being stated in the affidavit, the Court is duty bound to consider as to whether the documents should be received or not, that a liberal view had to be taken, that the documents should be received, more particularly, as receipt of documents did not amount to its being admitted to proof, that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff on mere receipt of the documents, as he would still have an opportunity to agitate on the question of admissibility and proof of such documents, that failure on the part of the Court below to permit the documents to be received adversely affected the rights of the petitioner/defendant and that this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should interfere. Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on K.V. Subramanyam Vs. K. Madhavi (1999(6) ALT 47(D.B.)), Dasuputruni Suryanarayana v. Dasuputruni Adinarayana(2005 (3) AL T 87 (D.B.)) and Dugaputi Sudhakar Reddy Vs. Avulapati Shankar Reddy(2005 (2) ALT 417).

5. Sri G. Vijaya Babu, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, on the other hand, would submit that receipt of documents, under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, was not automatic, that the amendment to the Code in 20