Courts should exercise discretion to permit the production of additional documents late in proceedings if they are essential to achieving substantial justice, provided no prejudice is caused to the opposing party, as procedural rules are subservient to the discovery of truth.

ORDER :

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 02.05.2025 passed in I.A.No.184 of 2025 in O.S.No.4 of 2022 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kaikaluru.

2. The petitioners are defendants and respondent is plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.4 of 2022.

3. The facts that led to filing of this Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that

(i) The respondent filed the suit for cancellation of the lease deed  executed by 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant; for mandatory injunction directing the 1st defendant to render accounts in respect of schedule property from 04.04.2015 till the date of handing over the original sale deed and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and the persons claiming through them from interfering with possession of the respondent of the suit schedule property. The contents of the plaint, in brief,are that the 1st defendant, who is father of the plaintiff, by misrepresentation and in fraudulent manner obtained General Power of Attorney in respect of the suit schedule property and collected huge amounts from various persons, but failed to render account and thus the plaintiff sent Whatsapp message to the first defendant not to deal with the property. The plaint further states that with an ulterior motive, the 1st defendant created registered lease agreement  dated 26.07.2011 in favour of 2nd defendant, who is mother of the plaintiff, by misusing the old passport size photograph of the plaintiff and subscribing thumb print at the photograph of the plaintiff and thus the registered lease agreement is forged and fabricated and had been executed despite the Whatsapp message sent by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant not to act as his GPA holder anymore .

(ii) The defendants filed written statement denying the material averments of the plaint contending that the plaint schedule property was  purchased by 1st defendant in the name of the plaintiff and at the time of purchase the plaintiff was a student with no means of earnings and thereafter the plaintiff out of his free will and consent executed registered General  Power of Attorney in favour of 1st defendant authorizing to deal with the plaint  schedule property. That the 1st defendant being the real owner besides being  GPA holder of the plaintiff executed registered lease deed in favour of 2nd defendant, who in her turn sublet the property under lease agreement dated 06.09.2021 and now the plaint schedule property is under sublease for a period of three years from 28.07.2021.

(iii) In the said suit, the plaintiff filed petition vide I.A.No.184 of 2025 under Order-VII, Rule-14(3) of Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘the CPC’) to condone the delay in filing the document enlisted therein contending that he sent Whatsapp message sent by him to 1st defendant to Truth Labs, Hyderabad and obtained a report and also reports of the International Forensic Science (IFS), Pune and Syndicate Forensic Services Pvt. Ltd., Pune to establish that the thumb impression said to be that of the plaintiff contained on the lease deed is not that of the plaintiff.

(iv) The respondents filed counter resisting the relief sought in the petition contending that since the petitioner did not obtain any permission of this Court before sending his mobile and the documents to the Laboratories, the reports of the laboratories procured by the petitioner by influencing them, cannot be received in evidence. That the petitioner without adducing evidence is dragging on the matter by filing frivolous petitions and hence the petition has to be dismissed.

(v) The learned trial Judge upon considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusing the record, allowed the petition.

(vi) The said order has been assailed by the defendants in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard Sri B.Abhay Siddhanth Mootha, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Eluru Sesha Mahesh Babu, learned counsel,