These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of common suit. Hence, they are heard and being disposed of together.

The respondent has filed O.S.No.61 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Tenali for permanent injunction against the petitioner in respect of the suit schedule property. After the evidence was closed and the suit was coming up for arguments, the respondent has filed I.A.No.148 of 2015 for reopening the evidence, I.A.No.149 of 2015 for recalling P.W-1 and I.A.No.150 of 2015 for receiving the documents in evidence. The petitioner has strenuously opposed the said applications by stating that no reasons, worth acceptable, have been put forth by the respondent for reopening the evidence. However, the lower Court by common order, dated 20.6.2015, has allowed the said applications. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the defendant filed these Civil Revision Petitions.

At the hearing, Sri Chakkilam Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner, has strenuously submitted that the respondent has failed to assign any reason whatsoever for filing the applications at a far too belated stage and that therefore, the lower Court has committed a serious jurisdictional error in allowing these applications. He has further submitted that under Order-VII Rule-14(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff shall enter all the documents, upon which he relies, in a list and shall produce them in the Court when the plaint is presented and unless the plaintiff satisfies the Court that he could not file the documents earlier with convincing reasons, the discretion vested in Rule-14 thereof shall not be exercised by the Court.

In support of this submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in C.Rama Mohan Reddy Vs. Kusetty Seshamma and others (2012(4) ALD 96) and M.R. Anjaneyulu Vs. R.Subramanyam Achary (2012(5) ALD 243).

As regards the proposition of law viz., that Order-VII Rule-14(1) C.P.C. enjoins upon the plaintiff to file all his documents along with the plaint and that unless he puts forth convincing reasons, the Court cannot allow him to file the documents at a later stage, the same is unexceptionable. Indeed, this Court has reiterated this legal position in both the judgments cited by learned counsel, as referred to supra. However, whether a party has put forth sufficient reasons for filing the documents at a belated stage or not, depends upon the facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in that regard.

In the present case, though no elaborate reasons have been assigned by the respondent for producing the documents after closure of the evidence, in para-2 of the affidavits, filed in support of his applications, he has pleaded that the documents which are proposed to be filed “are now available”. This plea was reiterated by his counsel at the hearing, which was recorded by the lower Court in the order, to the effect that the plaintiff being innocent and illiterate, could not find those documents at the time of filing the suit and that as those documents were essential for proving his possession, he has proposed to file the same. The lower Court has discussed the nature of the documents proposed to be filed, viz., electricity bills and house tax receipts and rendered a finding that in a suit for injunction, the aspect of possession is of prime consideration and that the documents which are proposed to be filed are necessary to prove the case of the respondent.

It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. It is also said that procedural and technical hurdles shall not come in the way of the Court for doing substantial justice. Where procedural violations cause serious prejudice to the adversary party, the Courts need to view such violations seriously and uphold the objections of the adversary party to prevent causing of such prejudice to it. In contrast, if such procedural violations do not lead to such result, the Courts must