1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order, dated 01.06.2011, in I.A.No.177 of 2011 in O.S.No.52 of 2001 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the above mentioned suit filed for recovery of suit amount from the respondents on the basis of the promissory note. On 11.02.2011, the petitioner, who was examined as P.W-1, was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respondents-defendants. After closure of the evidence on the plaintiff’s side, defendant No.3 filed his affidavit in lieu of chief-examination on 22.03.2011. On 08.04.2011, the respondents filed I.A.No.177 of 2011 for receiving seven pronotes into evidence. This application was resisted by the petitioner by filing a counter-affidavit. It is averred by the petitioner in the said counter-affidavit that the respondents have created and brought into existence the pronotes and that, they failed to show any valid and sufficient reasons for not filing them earlier. The Court below, however, while accepting the plea of the petitioner that the respondents failed to file the pronotes at the earlier stage of the case, allowed the application by holding that the respondents have mentioned adequate reasons for not filing them earlier.

3. At the hearing, Sri V.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that even though under Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a discretion is vested in the Court to permit the defendant to produce any document beyond the time stipulated other than at the time of filing the written statement, such discretion can be exercised only if the defendant comes out with proper explanation for not filing them along with the written statement. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Ravi Satish V. Edala Durga Prasad 2009(3) ALT 236.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that in the affidavit, the respondents have assigned the reason that the documents were not traced earlier and therefore, they could not be filed and that, the Court below having exercised its jurisdiction in favour of the respondents, the impugned order is not liable for interference by this Court.

5. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Rule I of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘C.P.C’) mandates that the defendant shall, within 30 days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence. Proviso to the said Rules, however, envisages that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of 30 days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but, which shall not be later than 90 days from the date of service of summons. Rule 1-A of Order VIII C.P.C., enjoins on the defendant to produce in the Court any document in his possession upon which he bases his defence or relies in support of his defence or claim for set off or counter-claim.

6. When the written statement is presented by him, he shall at the same time, deliver the documents thereof to be filed with the written statement. Rule 1-A(3) of Order VIII C.P.C., postulates that a document which ought to be produced in the Court by the defendant under this Rule, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.

7. Rules 1-A and 1-A(3)ofOrder VIII C.P.C.,were substituted by Act 46 of 1999 with effect from 01.07.2002. The object with which those Rules were amended was to curb the phenomenal delays in the procedural aspects leading to procrastination of the proceedings before the civil Court. The Parliament has thought it fit to stipulate time limits for the parties to file their defence and produce the documents along with the defence so that the cases can