1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff questioning the order dated 09.06.2010 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudur in I.A.No.160/2010 in O.S.No.434/2010, vide which, the learned Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VII Rule-14(3) CPC seeking to condone the delay in filing the documents.

2. Heard both sides

3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff. He obtained copy of the Adangal for fasali 1414 (2004) on 21.02.2005. He filed the suit on 04.11.2005. His case is that when he wanted to file copy of adangal for fasali 1414 (2004), his counsel advised him to file the said adangal along with the adangal for fasali 1415 (2005). According to him, he got the copy of Adangal of 1415 on 28.11.2005 i.e. subsequent to filing of the suit. According to him, by the time the injunction petition in I.A.No.1361/2005 came up for hearing. His further case is that copies of two Adangals could not be traced as they were misplaced while shifting his residence from Narasingaraopet to Dhurjati Nagar in the beginning of 2006.

4. The Court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff on the ground that there is no reasonable cause for not filing the copies of Adangals for Fasalis 1414 and 1415.

5. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff is that the trial in the suit is not yet commenced and in the above circumstances, the Court below is not justified in dismissing the application. It is also submitted that it is the discretion of the Court to allow the application, but the Court below failed to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submits that after filing of the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the petition for grant of injunction and the petitioner/plaintiff failed to file the documents in the said I.A.1361/2005. Subsequently the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.23/2010 for appointment of a Receiver and along with the said I.A. he filed certain documents, including the copies of two Adangals for Fasalis 1414 and 1415 and those documents were not marked in the said I.A. It is further submitted that the petitioner/plaintiff has failed to assign any reasons for not filing those documents in time.

7. The only point that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the Court below is justified in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Or.7 Rule-14(3) CPC.

8. Point:

Order 7 Rule-14 CPC reads as follows:-

“Production of Document on which plaintiff sues or relies:-

(1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon documents in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.

(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.

(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.

(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.

9. A reading of the above provision makes it clear that the plaintiff shall enter of such documents upon which he intends to rely in a list and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall deliver the documents and a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint. Rule-14 (2) of Or.7 CPC makes it clear that where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintif