IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that procedural delays should not prevent the introduction of relevant evidence, prioritizing substantial justice.

ORDER :

J. Sreenivas Rao, J.

This revision petition is filed, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the orders dated 01.08.2023, passed by the Principal District Judge at Jangaon in I.A.No.190 of 2023 in O.S.No.123 of 2016.

2. The revision petitioner herein is plaintiff and respondent No.1 is defendant No.1 in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit in O.S.No.123 of 2016 before the Court below.

3. Brief facts of the case:

3.1. Plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.123 of 2016 seeking declaration declaring him as absolute owner and possessor and for perpetual injunction restraining defendant No.1 from interfering into peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also sought decree directing defendant No.2 to issue pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of the plaintiff. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed application in I.A.No.190 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 14 of C.P.C. to receive certified copies of six documents. In the said application, the plaintiff stated that subsequent to filing of suit, the plaintiff complained before Lokayukta for non-implementation of the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangoan in File No.I/3508/2017, dated 22.07.2019, and basing upon the same, Lokayukta vide Letter No.807/2020/B1/Lok/8521/2020, dated 17.11.2020, directed the District Collector, Jangaon to submit report. Pursuant to the same, District Collector, Jangaon addressed a letter No.E1/1475/2020, dated 07.12.2020, to Revenue Divisional Officer and to Mandal Revenue Officer calling for detailed report about the complaint of the plaintiff. Pursuant to the same, Tahsildar addressed a letter No.Rc.I/2086/2020, dated 09.12.2020 and basing upon the same, Revenue Divisional Officer addressed a letter Rc.No.I/2086/2020 dated 19.01.2021. The plaintiff obtained the certified copies of the above said documents from the concerned authorities and the same are required to prove his claim in the suit. He further stated that after obtaining the said documents from the concerned authorities, he handed over the same to his earlier Counsel, but he has not filed the same and unless the documents were received, he will be put to great hardship, especially the suit is posted to 30.07.2023, for plaintiff’s evidence only.

3.2. Defendant No.1 filed counter contending that the documents filed by the plaintiff are internal correspondence among the officials and said documents are pertaining to the years 2020, 2021 and 2022 and the same are not relevant for adjudication of the suit. He further contented that plaintiff has not pleaded the said documents in the plaint and he filed the application at belated stage without giving any reasons.

3.3. The Court below dismissed the above said application in I.A.No.190 of 2023 by its order dated 01.08.2023 on the ground that the documents sought to be filed are subsequent to filing of the suit and the same are correspondence between the officials and the said documents cannot be produced without referring in the plaint and also plaintiff has not explained the delay in filing the application.

4. Heard Sri K. Devender, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and Sri R.K. Chitta, learned counsel for respondent No.1/defendant No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner mentioned in the memorandum of grounds that respondent No.2/ Defendant No.2 is not necessary party in the Civil Revision Petition.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the Court below without properly considering the contentions of the plaintiff erroneously dismissed the application on the ground that plaintiff has not referred the documents filed along with the application in the plaint. Admittedly, the said documents are subsequent to filing of the suit i.e., pertaining to 2020, 2021 and 2022 and question of mentioning the said documents in the plaint does not arise, as the suit was filed on 13.10.2016. He furth