1. This civil revision petition is filed against the docket order dated 23-03-2017 passed in IA No.229 of 2017 in OP No.7 of 2013 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar, allowing the said interlocutory application filed under Order 7, Rule 14 (c) CPC by the 1st respondent to receive the documents 1 and 2 on record.

2. Revision petitioner is the 1st respondent in OP No. 7 of 2013. Petitioner in the said OP is the 1st respondent herein, sought to declare the election of revision petitioner as Sarpanch of Ramadugu Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District, as null and void and to set aside the same and consequently declare her as duly elected Sarpanch of the said village. The ground on which the election of the revision petitioner sought to be set aside is that she is having three children, which according to the 1st respondent, is a disqualification to be elected to the post of Sarpanch.

3. The documents 1 and 2 which are sought to be filed, are documents showing the birth particulars of the 3rd child, which the learned counsel for the revision petitioner disputes and contend that there was no mention of those documents, muchless there existence was mentioned in the election OP and therefore, at this stage, when the OP is at the trial stage, ought not to have been taken on record by the trial Court.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that sub-Rule (3) of Rule 14, Order 7 CPC permits filing of documents though not filed along with the plaint, with the leave of the Court. It is also contended that in the OP, there is a pleading that revision petitioner is blessed with three children, but gave a false affidavit that she has only two children and the documents filed are only to substantiate that pleading and, therefore, the order impugned is to be sustained and does not warrant any interference.

5. Admittedly, the OP is filed on the thrust of the revision petitioner having three children and according to the 1st respondent-election petitioner that itself is a disqualification to hold the post of Sarpanch. A perusal of the plaint of the OP, it is clear that the 1st respondent has pleaded that the revision petitioner has three children and she has filed a false affidavit that she is having only two children. The documents which will substantiate the case of the 1st respondent, were required to be filed along with the plaint, but can be filed with the leave of the Court, on being shown plausible reason. The reason stated for not filing those documents along with the plaint is stated that her counsel mistakenly and due to over sight, could not file along with the plaint. The trial Court allowed the application and that order being a discretionary order, cannot be interfered with unless such exercise of discretion is based on perversity and undermines the cause of justice.

6. After introduction of sub-Rule (3) of Rule 14, Order 7 CPC, by Amendment Act 22 of 2002, it is permissible, for valid reasons shown, that if any document which ought to have been produced by the petitioner at the time of presentation of the plaint, it can be received subsequently, with the leave of the Court. The decisions of this Court in BADA BODAIAH vs. BADA LIGNASWAMY, 2003 (1) ALD 790 & CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED vs. SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, 2003 (2) ALD 558, relied on by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent also lays down the same proposition. The decision of this Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in BOIIA AJAY BABU vs. NALLA MANIKYAMMA, 2009 LAW SUIT (AP) 664 is a case where it is observed that there was no pleading in the plaint vis-a-vis the documents sought to be filed and under those circumstances, in the absence of such a reference, refusing to grant leave by the trial Court was affirmed by this Court. The facts in the case on hand are distinguishable and in this case there is a pleading that the petitioner has three children and she has filed a false affidavit that sh