ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 20.01.2023 in I.A.No.890 of 2022 in O.S.No.234 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Gadwal.

2. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit before the Lower Court.

3. The defendants filed I.A.No.890 of 2022 under Order 8 Rule 1-A Sub-rule 3 of C.P.C. seeking leave of the Court to file the proceedings in file No.A/1587 of 2013, dated 14.11.2013 issued by the Tahasildar Ghattu Mandal. The plea taken in that petition is that at the time of filing written statement, a photo copy of the proceedings was filed since the original had been misplaced and the same was traced out and produced before the Court in support of their claim and that if the document is not received they would be put to loss which cannot be compensated.

4. The plaintiffs filed counter to the petition denying the plea taken in the petition. They alleged that the document was obtained by the defendants illegally in collusion with the revenue authorities and that the document is of the year 2013 whereas they (plaintiffs) filed the suit along with the documents of the year 2022 and that the petition is filed to delay the suit proceedings. The lower Court after considering the material on record and the rival contention allowed the petition. Aggrieved thereby the plaintiffs preferred the present civil revision petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

PERUSED THE RECORD

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

6. As can be seen from the impugned order, the lower Court found that the photo copy of the document in question had not been filed along with the written statement, but however, the Court granted leave for receiving the document by giving the reason that since according to the defendants the document is crucial for their claim. It is of the opinion that dismissing the petition would amount to denial of justice and for that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs if the document is received into Court. Order VIII Rule 1-A C.P.C. reads as under :

1-A. Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him.

(1) Where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set off or counter claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement.

(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.

(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.

7. In Ravi Satish v Edala Durga Prasad and others reported in 2009 (3) ALT 236 relied upon by the counsel for the revision petitioners a single judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh while dealing with the provision under Order 8 Rule 1-A C.P.C. held at para 10 as follows :

“Sub Rule (3) of Rule 1A of Order VIII permits the documents to be received only on leave being granted by the Court. Grant of leave is not for the mere asking, nor is the Court a mere post-office to receive documents even in the absence of any reasons being furnished for failure to file the said documents along with the written statement. Admittedly, in the case on hand, no reasons whatsoever have been furnished by the petitioner, let alone adequate cause been shown as to why the documents, which were the subject matter of the applications could not be filed earlier along with the written statement. Having chosen not to give any reasons, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the Court below should have received the documents, s