The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delay in filing documents can be condoned to meet the ends of justice, and the court may allow the filing of documents with necessary costs imposed on the party seeking to file the documents.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. These revisions are filed against the common order passed in I.A.No. 138 of 2020, I.A.No. 140 of 2022 and I.A.No. 143 of 2022 and docket orders in I.A Nos. 137 of 2022 and I.A.No. 141 of 2022 in O.S.No. 56 of 2017 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool dtd. 14/3/2023 in rejecting to receive the documents mentioned in I.A.No. 138 of 2022 and recall PW1 for marking of those documents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the petitioners in the above said I.As and plaintiffs in the suit. The respondent is the respondent in the I.As and the defendant in the suit. The suit is filed in O.S.No. 56 of 2017 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool by the petitioners against the respondent as defendant in the said suit seeking declaration of title and grant of permanent injunction with respect to the suit schedule property to an extent of Ac. 3.95 cents in Sy.Nos. 414/3, 414/1A and 414/1B. In the plaint of the suit, it is stated that one Mr. Chennaiah and E.C. Manohar also filed O.S.No. 19 of 2003 seeking injunction against the government when it tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property therein and obtained interim injunction during the pendency of the suit. Subsequently, the said suit was decreed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that against the said suit the first appeal is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. Now that the present suit is at the stage of defendants' evidence. The documents filed along with the plaint were already marked as exhibits during the course of plaintiffs' evidence. However, the documents relating to O.S.No. 19 of 2003 decreed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool are not marked in the present suit which may cause prejudice to the case of the petitioners/plaintiffs in establishing their title for the said property. Hence the petitioners filed the above said I.As before the trial court after obtaining those documents as mentioned in the above said I.A with leave application to recall PW1 for marking of those documents. The trial court after considering those I.As on merits rejected the same on the ground that the documents which are sought to be filed by the petitioner are the certified copies of the documents in O.S.No. 19 of 2003 which was diposed off by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge in the month of November, 2006 itself. Therefore, it is very clear that there was every possibility of getting certified copies of documents in O.S.No. 19 of 2003 from the said court for filing the same along with the plaint in the present suit but no explanation was given by the petitioners/plaintiffs as to why they could not be filed along with the plaint or atleast by producing the same during the course of evidence of PW1. Unless valid reasons are furnished for non filing of the documents along with the plaint, the court cannot grant leave in a routine manner to file the documents at a later stage. The trial court further observed that the proposed documents do not in any way help the petitioners in proving their title over the suit schedule property. Moreover, there is a direction from the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh to dispose of the suit within a reasonable time.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the above said I.As, the petitioners submitted the reasons for non production of those documents either at the stage of filing of the suit or during the course of plaintiffs evidence as they are not available with them and it took some time for them to obtain the certified copies of the same.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the trial court rightly dismissed the above said I.As since those documents do not in any way be helpful to establish the title of the plaintiffs with respect to the suit schedul