The court emphasized that documents crucial for defense cannot be rejected solely for late production if they are supported by existing pleadings, affirming judicial discretion under procedural rules.

ORDER :

K Sreenivasa Reddy, J.

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order, dated 13.08.2024, in I.A.No.763 of 2024 in O.S.No.287 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to receive document viz. original discharge receipt dated 08.03.2020 executed by the respondent/plaintiff in favour of the petitioner/defendant, was dismissed.

2. Heard both sides and perused the record.

3. Respondent/plaintiff filed Original Suit No.287 of 2020 before the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore against the petitioner/defendant, for recovery of money, basing on promissory notes. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement admitting execution of the suit promissory notes and stating inter alia that originally, he borrowed the amounts from one Madhavi and executed promissory notes in her favour, and on her request, the petitioner/defendant executed the suit promissory notes in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, and thereafter, the promissory notes executed in her favour were torn by her. It is further contended in the written statement that the petitioner/defendant discharged the entire amount to respondent/plaintiff on 08.03.2020 by paying Rs.5,40,000/-, for which the respondent/plaintiff executed a receipt therefor. A photo copy of the said receipt is filed along with the written statement. During trial of the suit, the petitioner/defendant filed the present petition, along with his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief, seeking permission to receipt original of the said receipt dated 08.03.2020, which was dismissed by the trial Court, vide the impugned order. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is factual foundation in the pleadings with regard to the receipt which now sought to be received, and a photo copy of the said document is also filed along with the written statement. He submits that the said document is essential to establish the defence of discharge taken by the petitioner/defendant, and since there is pleading with regard to the said document and a photocopy was also filed along with the written statement, he prays to receive original of the said document.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that no reasons were assigned in the petition for non-production of the document at the earliest point of time, when the said document is in the custody of the petitioner, and considering the same, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff relied on the following decisions.

(i) In Voruganti Narayana Rao v. B.Rammurthy & others, [ (2011) 6 ALT 299 ] wherein it is held thus: (paragraph 7)

“7. Rules 1-A and 1-A(3) of Order VIII CPC, were substituted by Act 46 of 1999 with effect from 1.7.2002., The object with which those Rules were amended was to curb the phenomenal delays in the procedural aspects leading to procrastination of the proceedings before the civil Court. The Parliament has thought it fit to stipulate time limits for the parties to file their defence and produce the documents along with the defence so that the cases can be disposed of without avoidable delays. This being the avowed object with which the above noted provisions are amended, Rule 1-A(3) of Order VIII CPC, which on a literal interpretation appears to vest unlimited discretion with the Court, requires to be interpret