Point of Law: Rule 1-A of Order VIII CPC, the court shall not permit the defendant to file such documents later, and liberal approach in this regard would frustrate the purpose for which the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are amended.

JUDGMENT :

J.Uma Devi, J.

These three civil revision petitions are filed against separate orders, passed on 06.11.2011 in I.A.Nos.122, 121 & 123 of 2019 in O.S.No.4 of 2011, by the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni.

2. Heard both sides and perused the orders impugned.

3. The admitted fact is that after the trial concluded and when the matter was posted for arguments, the aforementioned three applications were made, viz.,I.A.No.122 of 2019 was filed under Sec.151 CPC to reopen the suit for further cross examination of PW 1; I.A.No.121 of 2019 was filed under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to recall PW 1 to confront with the certified copies of certain documents; and I.A.No.123 of 2019 was filed under Order 8 Rule 1 (1A) 3 CPC to receive (1) certified copy of sale deed No.3006/1984, (2) certified copy of sale deed No.3006/1984 and (3) certified copy of sale deed No.3752/2019. These three applications were opposed by the contesting respondent/plaintiff by filing counters. The court below, vide separate orders dated 06.11.2019, dismissed all these three applications. Questioning the same, these three revision petitions are filed.

4. Since these three revision petitions are between the same parties involving interrelated issues, they have been considered together and taken up for disposal by this common order.

5. Petitioners are Defendants Nos.19, 33 to 36 in O.S.No.4 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni. The suit O.S.No.4 of 2011 was filed by the contesting respondent/plaintiff for declaration of his title over the plaint schedule property nullifying the alienations covered by various documents bearing Nos.692/1995, 1225/1995, 1652/1990, 4425/2005, 3108/1995, 5583/2006, 2872/2008, 2510/1994, 1224/1995, 420/2006, 2826/2010, 3063/2005, 1382/1995, 3148/2006, 1227/1995, 472/2004, 3780/2001, 1464/2005 and 991/2005 respectively, which are said to be executed by the 2nd respondent/1st defendant-M/s.Vijay Estate Traders, Adoni, represented by its Partner M.Veeranjinayulu in favour of respondents Nos.2 to 20. It appears that during pendency of the suit, defendants Nos.3 and 7 died and their legal representatives were brought on record. However, as found from the cause title of the revision petitions, respondents Nos.2 to 32 were arrayed as "not necessary parties".

6. The only contesting respondent in these revision petitions is the plaintiff in O.S.No.4 of 2011. He has been arrayed as 32nd respondent in the impugned interlocutory applications and as 1st respondent in the present revision petitions.

7. It is noticed from the orders impugned that while the suit filed by the contesting respondent/plaintiff reached the stage of hearing the arguments, aforementioned three applications were filed by the revision petitioners.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the need and necessity to recall PW 1 is to adduce further evidence and to mark certain documents for deciding the contentious issue involved in the suit and the court below ought to have seen that power is inherited in it under Section 151 CPC to receive documents at any stage for better adjudication of the case. He further submits that the court below has not considered the right of parties to file applications seeking to mark documents at any point of time before passing of final judgment, and that all the documents which the revision petitioners intend to bring on record by confronting PW 1 are the public documents, and that the court below ought to have granted leave, particularly, in view of the provisions of law laid down under Rule 1A(3) of Order 8 CPC. The learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in K.K.Velusamy v. Palanisamy, 2011 11 SCC 275 in support of his contention that the documents now sought to be produced are public documents and they can be taken on record.

9. While submitting reply to the aforementioned submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel of the contesting