A.V. SESHA SAI, J.

1. Defendants in O.S.No.99 of 2011, on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda, Anantapur District, are the petitioners in the present revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This revision calls in question order dated 21.12.2016 passed by the said Court in I.A.No.447 of 2016.

2. The respondent herein instituted the above mentioned suit against the petitioners herein for cancellation of a Gift Deed dated 05.11.1998 executed by the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of the defendants and for a decree for Rs.25,000/- towards compensation apart from costs.

3. The defendants/petitioners herein filed a written statement in the month of November, 2011 denying the plaint pleadings while praying for dismissal of the suit. After the closure of the evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs, the defendants/petitioners herein filed I.A.No.447 of 2016 under the provisions of Order 8, Rule 1-A (3) r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying the Court below to receive the documents enclosed to the said application by condoning the delay in filing the same.

4. The plaintiff/respondent herein resisted the said application by way of filing counter. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda, by way of the order under challenge, dismissed the said application. This revision assails the validity and the legal sustainability of the said order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge.

5. Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation for the petitioners and Sri A.Hanumantha Reddy for the respondent apart from perusing the material available before the Court.

6. It is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners State Road Transport Corporation that the questioned order is highly erroneous, contrary to law and is opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of Order 8, Rule 1 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the documents proposed to be filed before the Court below are very crucial and would be highly helpful for the Court to come to a just and reasonable conclusion. It is further submitted that on the ground of mere delay the petitioners herein cannot be non-suited and the Court below grossly erred in not considering the categoric averments of the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the documents could be traced out recently. It is further argued by the learned counsel that in the event of the present application being allowed, the same would not cause any prejudice to the respondent herein. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the reasons assigned by the learned Judge are neither sustainable nor tenable in the eye of law.

7. To bolster his submissions and contentions, the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275 and the judgments of this Court in GPR Housing Private Limited v. C. Prithvi Raj Reddy, 2015 (1) ALT 330, Dasuputruni Suryanarayana v. Dasuputruni Adinarayana And Others, 2005 (3) ALT 87 (D.B) and John Santiyago v. Clement Dass And Others, 2014 (3) ALT 83.

8. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent herein contends that there is no illegality nor there is any jurisdictional error in the impugned order and in the absence of the same the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge is not amenable for any judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. According to the learned counsel, the defendants in the affidavit filed in support of the present application in the Court below did not assign any valid and proper reasons for not filing the proposed documents along with the written statement. It is further submitted that the proposed documents are not relevant for adjudication in the