Timely submission of documents and the requirement for sufficient cause to be shown for their delayed filing are crucial principles in civil procedure.

ORDER :

1. As the issue involved in both the civil revision petitions is one and the same, these matters are taken up together for disposal by this Common Order.

2. The petitioner herein is the defendant No. 6 and the respondents 1 to 3 are the plaintiffs and the respondents No. 4 to 18 are the defendants No. 1 to 5 and 7 to 16 in O.S.No. 224 of 2006, which was filed before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole (for short “the trial Court”) for grant of partition of the schedule property as per compromise decree in O.S No. 183 of 1932 and also for declaration. The petitioner herein filed I.A.Nos.82 of 2023 in O.S.No. 224 of 2006 under Order VIII Rule 1(A) 3 of CPC seeking to receive documents for the purpose of marking the same on behalf of the petitioner/DW.2 and also filed I.A.No. 83 of2023 in O.S.No. 224 of 2006 before the trial Court under Order18 Rule 17 of CPC seeking to recall the petitioner/DW.2 for the purpose of marking documents. The same were dismissed by the trial Court vide separate orders dated 14.03.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petitions came to be filed.

3. Heard Mr. U. Prabhunath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P. Kamalakar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the proposed documents are to be received for the purpose of marking the same in the evidence of DW.2 for proper adjudication of the suit. He further submits that the proposed documents are relevant and useful in determining the issue and hence the documents are to be received for the purpose of marking the same through the petitioner/DW.2. In support of his contention, relied upon a catena of decisions reported in:

(i) Joint Commissioner-cum-Chief Fire Officer Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh and Others vs. Ajay Singh, Civil Revision Petition No. 59 of 2021 dated 20.07.2022 wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that “No good cause for not placing the CD along with written statement, at the first instance, ever came to be placed on record, rather pleadings as set up in the written statement and application filed Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC are contradictory.

(ii) Nerudu Srinivas Reddy and Another vs. Neerudu Sunanda alias Sunanda Reddy alias Sripathy Sunanda Reddy, 2016 (3) ALD 49 wherein it was held that invoking of inherent power under Section 151 CPC in the facts of the present case is for brining of further evidence in the form of an Advocate Commissioners report by the petitioners. In that view of the matter, the procedure for adducing and recording of evidence as provided for under Order XVIII may be noticed.

(iii) In K.K. Veluswamy vs. N. Palaniswamy, 2011 Law Suit (SC) 271 wherein it was held that the ode earlier had a specific provision in Order 18 Rule 17A for production of evidence not previously known or the evidence which could not be produced despite due diligence.

5. Learned counsel while relying upon the decisions stated above, contended that, it is necessary to determine the present application. As the I.A.No. 81 of 2023 was allowed by reopening the suit for the purpose of receiving the documents and marking the same through DW.2, the application is before the Court for determination. Admittedly the suit is filed by R.1 to R.3/plaintiffs for partition in respect of their 7/24th share in the plaint schedule property as per the compromise decree in O.S No. 183 of 1992 determination of profits and to declare permission granted to D1 and D.10 by D.11 to D.16 for carrying quarry operations is not at all acceptable.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed counter on behalf of the respondents No. 4 to 7 and denied all the allegations made in the petition. He contended that the petitioner filed petition in a casual manner that the suit is coming up for submission of arguments suppressing the fact that the suit is coming up for arguments since 23.10.2017, i.e., 5 years after the suit is posted for arguments. The pe