The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the court to grant leave for the reception of documents at a subsequent stage, emphasizing the importance of facilitating justice.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated 05.12.2018 passed in I.A. No. 1027 of 2018 in O.S. No. 411 of 2012 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. This application in I.A. No. 1027 of 2018 was filed under Order-VII, Rule-14(3), read with section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’) for receiving the documents in evidence on behalf of plaintiff.

3. Heard learned counsel on both sides.

4. For the sake of convenience the parties are herein after referred to as plaintiff and defendants as they were arrayed in the original suit.

5. The plaintiff has filed the original suit for recovery of suit claim of Rs. 14,46,29,103/-. The defendants have filed written statement. Issues are settled. During trial, evidence of PW-1 was recorded, some documents appears to have been marked. At this stage, the plaintiff-M/s. Team Engineers Advanced Technologies (I) Private Limited, has filed this application in I.A. No. 1027 of 2018 under Order-VII, Rule-14 (3) of CPC, to receive certain documents that are filed along with the application on behalf of plaintiff. The trial Court through the order impugned has permitted the plaintiff to file the documents with an observation that all the documents except the documents dated 18.10.2018 and 29.10.2018 shall be received in evidence subject to proof and relevancy. It is pertinent to mention that along with this application in I.A. No. 1027 of 2018, the plaintiff has filed another application in I.A. No. 1026 of 2018 under Order-XVIII, Rule-17 of CPC to recall PW-1 for the purpose of marking the documents and that application was allowed. The orders in I.A. No. 1026 of 2018 attained finality, as the defendant did not challenge the same. The plaintiff has challenged the orders passed in I.A. No. 1027/2018 on the following grounds:

(a) The trial Court ought to have seen that these two documents dated 18.10.2018 and 29.10.2018 are also pertain to the suit transactions relating to the payment details in Annexure I and II and these are essential documents to prove the case of the plaintiff.

(b) Learned Judge ought to have seen that the suit is filed for recovery of money and in deciding the issues these documents play crucial role.

6. Learned counsel for plaintiff argued that the plaintiff has filed Original Suit for recovery of money and these two documents are quite essential. In fact, the plaintiff has categorically mentioned about the transactions in the tabular form in Page No. 58 to and again at 61 to 63 of the Paper Book and that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that unless these documents are received great prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for defendants submitted that the suit is filed in the year 2012, till 04.09.2018, plaintiff’s evidence was in progress. Now to fill up the lacunae in the evidence they are trying to recall PW-1. The disputed documents are relating to the year 2018, whereas, the original suit is filed in the year 2012 and they have no reference in the pleadings in the plaint. Affidavit filed in support of the application does not reflect the reasons as to why these documents are essential.

8. At page 58 of the paper book, the document dated 29.10.2018 is found. It is with reference to status of payment made to the defendant and in fact it was addressed to the plaintiff by the Deputy Collector, Residual Purchase and Inspection Section, Jeevan Tara Building, 5, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. It is an official document received by the plaintiff in the normal course. Document dated 18.10.2018 is at Page 61 of the paper book. Again the said document deals with the status of the payment made to M/s. Harbour Sales Private Limited (HSPL) i.e. defendant No. 1. It was addressed to Sri. V.P. Verma, Deputy Director (RP&I) Section, New Delhi. Though the document is dated 18.10.2018, it relates to the transactions for the period from 2008 to 2010 al