The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court may not permit the filing of additional documents at a belated stage if it would only protract the case, as established by the principles in the case of K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy.

JUDGMENT :

This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 19.01.2022 passed in I.A. No.265 of 2020 in O.S. No.24 of 2013 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.

2. The revision petitioners and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs and the defendants, respectively, in the said suit.

3. The revision petitioners have filed a suit in O.S. No.24 of 2013 for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit land on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. While so, when the matter is at the stage of arguments, an application in I.A. No.265 of 2020 under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with 151 CPC was filed with a prayer to receive the documents i.e., Certified Copy of Panchanama along with copies of sketch map pertaining to the survey of the suit land by the MC Inspector. The Court below dismissed the said application vide its order dated 19.01.2022 holding that the suit is at the fag end of the disposal and more particularly the evidence of the plaintiffs is closed long back and the suit is of the year 2013. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed the present revision petition.

4. Before the Court below, the learned Government Pleader had vehemently opposed the petition stating that the documents shall not be received at the fag end of the suit and he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Choudari Rajesham Vs. Choudari Lingaiah (died) and another reported in (2019) 6 ALT 583 (TS).

5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that the documents sought to be received by the Court below were public documents and as such, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents. Further, sufficient cause was shown that there is no delay in filing such an application as the same was came to be filed during the course of hearing of an application in I.A. No.813 of 2019. Advocate Commissioner filed his report in I.A. No.813 of 2019. In support of his claim, he placed reliance on the order dated 17.05.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No.4096 of 2022 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and submitted that the party should be permitted to produce documents if there is some delay. He also submitted that it is a settled principle of law that an application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC can be filed even during the hearing of the suit if sufficient cause is shown and that the petitioner has shown the sufficient reason that he has recently filed the counter/objection petition to the Commissioner’s report and these documents are in support of said objection petition, but for the sake of petition to receive the said documents he could not file it earlier and the delay, if any, is not intentional but only accidental and fit to be condoned.

The Court below without proper appreciation of the said submissions erroneously dismissed the said application.

6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that according to the revision petitioners the alleged documents were obtained prior to filing of the suit but they never mentioned anything about existence of those documents. It was further submitted that both the parties have completed their evidence and Advocate Commissioner had also filed his report and at this stage, the petitioners only to cover up the lacunae and to protract the matter filed the said application and further submitted that the Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC contemplates that a document which ought to be produced in the Court or entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint, but in the subject suit the alleged document was neither produced in the Court nor entered in the list of documents accordingly. In view of the same, the Court below did not commit any error in passing the impugned order and therefore, this revision petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for t