ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 23.02.2023 dismissing I.A.No.186 of 2023 in O.S.No.02 of 2016 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Kadapa filed by the defendants under Order VIII, Rule 1A (3) CPC seeking to condone the delay in filing the following list of documents:-

1) Original Registered Sale Deed dated 18.03.1963 executed by Mahaboob Peera and Hussainbu in favour of Habbuaigari Fakruddin.

2) Original Will executed by Habuaigari Fakruddin in favour of Habbuaigari Khajamohiddin, S.Rahamathunnissa, S.Ameernnissa, S.Asia begum.

3) Original Pattaddar passbook issued in favour of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Proddatur in favour Habbuaigari Fakruddin.

4) Original Cist Receipts issued by the Mandal Revenue Authorities, Proddatur 10 in numbers.

5) Original statement of Encumbrance Certificate 2 in numbers.

6) Original 1B Namuna issued by Tahasildar, Proddatur Mandalam in favour of Habbuaigari Fakruddin.

7) Original Pattadar Adangal 2 in numbers issued by Tahasildar, Proddatur Mandalam in favour of Habbuaigari Fakruddin.

8) Original Registered Gift settlement Deed dated 11.11.2011 executed by Syed Rahamathunnissa in favour of Syed Arshad Hussain.

9) Original Registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 11.11.2011 executed by A.Khaja Mohiddin in favour of Syed Arshad Hussain.

10) Original Pattadar Pass Book issued by the Tahasildar, Proddatur Mandalam in favour of Syed Arshad Hussain.

11) Original Pattadar Adangal 2 in numbers issued by Tahasildar, Proddatur Mandalam in favour of Syed Arshad Hussain.

12) Original 1B Namuna issued by Tahasildar, Proddatur Mandalam in favour of Syed Arshad Hussain.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction and for declaration of the gift deeds bearing Nos.12987 and 12988 of 2011 dated 11.11.2011 as null and void. The Contd…

petitioners filed the written statement referring to all the above listed documents. The petitioners stated that the delay in filing material evidence is neither willful nor intentional and therefore it is required to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file documents.

3. The petition was opposed stating that the documents were very much available to the petitioner at the time of filing of the written statement, but they were not filed and that the alleged will bearing No.17 of 1990 does not belong to late Habbubaigari Fakruddin and the same was created by the petitioner for the purpose of his evidence only.

4. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition observing that the petition does not refer to what actually happened to these documents and why they could not be filed along with the written statement and also the delay in filing between 2016 and 2023 was not explained. The trial Court was not satisfied with the reasons stated by the petitioners for the delay.

5. Having been aggrieved by the order the petitioners/defendants preferred this revision petition reiterating the same contentions as in their affidavit enclosed in the petition. The petitioners further stated that the trial Court did not properly appreciate the matter.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that rules of procedure are handmaid of justice and that since a foundation was laid in the written statement by referring to all these documents even with reference to the numbers, dates and description, it is not a surprise to the respondent about the documents and that all these documents were referred in the cross-examination of the plaintiff as well. He further submitted that in view of the material importance of these documents in support of the defense, the trial Court ought to have given an opportunity to file these documents even by imposing some costs and ought not to have prevented the petitioners from educing evidence on their part to discharge their burden of proof of their case.

7. Mrs. Ayeesha, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the r