Procedural rules ensure timely justice; failure to justify late document submission can lead to dismissal of applications.

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed assailing the order dated 14.11.2023 in I.A.No.381 of 2023 in O.S.No.354 of 2013, passed by the VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. 2. Heard Sri C.Anvesh Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri N.Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 3, and Sri N.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for respondent No.15.

3. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein are plaintiffs and respondent Nos.1 to 15 herein are defendant Nos.1 to 15, respectively, in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

4. The brief facts of the case, shorn off unnecessary details required for adjudication of the present Civil Revision Petition, are that the plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.354 of 2013 against the defendants seeking the relief of declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property and also for cancellation of Gift Settlement deeds executed in respect of the said property.

5. Pending adjudication of the said suit, plaintiffs filed an application vide IA.No.381 of 2023 to receive certain documents mentioned in the petition. In the affidavit, filed in support of the said application, the plaintiffs averred that the documents sought to be received could not be traced at the time of filing of the suit and hence, they could not be filed along with the plaint. They further averred that the said documents are crucial and relevant to prove their case and hence, prayed to allow the application.

6. Separate counter-affidavits were filed by defendant Nos.1 to 3, and defendant No.15 opposing the said application. Defendant No.15 in his counter-affidavit stated that earlier, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.6 of 2020 under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC to receive the documents and same was allowed, however, again, the plaintiffs filed the present application for receiving the additional documents only to cover up the defects and laches and to delay the proceedings; that the subject documents are sham documents and that the plaintiffs may be put to strict proof that the said documents could not be traced at the time of filing the suit and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the application.

7. The trial Court, after hearing both the parties and on perusal of the record, dismissed the said application, vide impugned order dated 14.11.2023. Challenging the said order, the present application is filed.

8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs submitted that the trial Court has totally ignored the fact that the plaintiffs submitted that the documents sought to be taken on record are crucial to prove their claim in the suit. He further submitted that the trial Court failed to consider that for adjudicating the issues involved in the suit, the subject documents are necessary and as such, the trial Court erred in dismissing the said application, thereby denying opportunity to the plaintiffs to rebut the assertions made by learned counsel for defendant No.15. He further submitted that the trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that additional documents are produced at belated stage, which is contrary to Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC and by contending thus, he prayed to allow the Revision Petition.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 3/ defendant Nos.1 to 3 submitted that the trial Court had rightly dismissed the application as the plaintiffs failed to explain sufficient reasons for filing the documents at belated stage