IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for defendants to produce documents along with the written statement and the need for sufficient cause to file documents later during the trial.

JUDGMENT

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 petitioners herein are the defendants No.1 to 6 and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.28 of 2008, which was filed by the plaintiff before the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram (for short "the trial Court") for grant of specific performance of agreement of sale. The present impugned I.A No.1149 of 2015 in O.S.No.28 of 2008 under Order VIII Rule 1(A) 3 of CPC seeking to receive documents and also filed I.A.No.1150 of 2015 in O.S.No.28 of 2008 before the trial Court under Order VI Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 of CPC seeking to permit them to amend the written statement filed by the defendants No.1 to 3 by inserting the para 9(1) after para 9 of the written statement. The same were dismissed by the trial Court vide separate orders dtd. 27/1/2016. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petitions came to be filed.

3. This Court, vide order dtd. 18/3/2016 in CRP Nos.1380 & 1381 of 2016, has granted interim stay reads as under: "There shall be stay of all further proceedings in OS No.28 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, East Godavari District, for a period of eight weeks.

4. Heard Mr. J.Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. K.B. Ramanna Dora, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that praying to receive the enclosed documents by condoning the delay in filing the same, sine is contrary to the settled principle of law, the same is liable to be set aside. He further submits that marking of the documents are essential to prove the petitioners/defendants case and disprove the case of the respondents/plaintiffs. Further, it is a suit for alleged specific performance of agreement of sale and injunction, wherein, substantial rights of the parties to be decided on merits and on a full fledged trial. If it is not done, great prejudice will be caused to the parties. He further submits that the observations of the Court below are not on sound lines. The documents and evidence are confined only to the suit but not otherwise subject matter. Therefore, the Court below in dismissing the I.As filed by the petitioners/defendants are contrary to settled principles of law and hence prayed to set aside the impugned orders.

6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad reported in Rajah R.V.G.K. Ranga Rao and another v. Nizams Sugars Limited, Latchayyapeta, Seethanagaram Mandal, Vizianagaram District,2004 (1) ALD 387. wherein it was held that : and on the ground of laches there cannot be shutting of evidence provided the Court is satisfied that there is some reason for nonproduction of the documents as specified and contemplated by the provisions of the Code. If reasons are explained normally the Court may have to lean in favour of receiving the documents since it is the fundamental principle that the parties should be permitted to let in all possible evidence which are relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the matters in controversy before the Court. . It is also pertinent to note that the Courts are expected to be more careful and cautious in relation to reception of documents and instead of driving the parties to approach the revisional Court it is always better to grant leave and receive the documents permitting the parties to adduce necessary evidence and to expedite the matters and dispose of the main proceedings. By making such orders it is needless to observe that the proceedings will be further delayed. Viewed from any angle, the orders impugned in these revisions cannot be sustained and they are hereby set aside.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioners took several adjournments to adduce evidence and came with th