ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petition is against an order dated

18.07.2024 dismissing the petitioners’ application under Order VIII Rule 1A of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for receiving 4 documents.

2. The petitioners are the defendants in a Suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff Housing Society. The plaintiff prayed for a decree of eviction and delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioners/defendants filed their Written Statement and filed an application for receiving 4 documents at a belated stage of the evidence of DW-1.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants have placed relevant documents and relied on decisions.

4. The affidavit filed by the defendants for receiving the 4 documents, namely, simple Sale Deed, Property Tax Assessment, Tap Connection Order and Property Tax Assessment for the year 1996, attempts to give the grounds for receiving the said documents.

Paragraph 3 of the affidavit, however simply states the following:

“…yesterday when I am searching some old papers, I have found original simple sale deed purchased by my father…”

“….the most important documents in support of the case. The same may be received and marked…”

5. The affidavit does not mention any reason as to why the petitioners sought to bring the documents on record at a belated stage of the proceedings or what prevented the defendants from filing the 4 documents with the Written Statement.

6. Paragraph 1 of the Written Statement filed by defendants states that the defendants are the original owners of the property and that the defendants are in possession of their respective houses prior to 1984. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied on this paragraph in support of his submission with regard to the necessity of the documents being brought on record. However, the affidavit filed along with the application for bringing the additional documents on record does not refer to the case made out by the defendants in the Written Statement or how these documents are relevant to the defendants’ case that they are in possession of the suit schedule property prior to 1984. This is particularly relevant since the defendants seek to receive the Property Assessment for the year 1996. 7. The reason given by the Trial Court for rejecting the petitioners/defendants’ application for receiving the 4 documents is the absence of sufficient reasons for the failure of the defendants to prove these documents at an earlier point of time.

8. This Court does not find any infirmity in the reasons given in the impugned order.

9. The decisions cited on behalf of the petitioners do not come to their assistance. In Sugandhi Vs. P. Rajkumar1, the Supreme Court came to a specific finding that the defendants had assigned cogent reasons for failing to produce the documents along with the Written Statement. Levaku Pedda Reddamma Vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma2 has been cited for the proposition that rules of procedure is the hand-maid of justice. In the present case, the affidavit filed by petitioners shows that petitioners/defendants did not furnish a single reason for filing the application at a belated stage.

10. This Court accordingly does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

11. CRP.No.2755 of 2024, along with connected application, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J Date:18.10.2024 Ssy/bms

1 AIR ONLINE 2020 SC 807

2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 533