HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated

04.09.2024 in I.A.No.526 of 2024 in O.S.No.929 of 2022 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda, whereunder the application filed by the revision petitioner under Order VIII Rule 1 A(3) CPC seeking

leave of the Court to receive the documents was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri S.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Ch.Manicharan, learned counsel for

respondent No.1.

3. The revision petitioner is defendant No.3, respondent No.1 is plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein are defendant Nos.1

and 2, respectively, in the suit.

4. The succinct facts of the case are that respondent No.1 filed suit in OS.No.929 of 2022 for grant of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property and also for cancellation of GPA bearing document No.3268/2013, dated 18.04.2013, against respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein and the revision petitioner. The

revision petitioner entered appearance and filed his written statement denying the plaint averments, issues were framed, evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was concluded and as defendant No.1 was set ex parte, the evidence on behalf of defendant No.2 was recorded and was concluded. When the matter was posted for evidence of the revision petitioner/defendant No.3, the revision petitioner filed the present application to receive certain documents, which are as follows:-

(i) Original registered sale deed dated 12.06.1989 bearing No.5348 of 1989 (ii) Original registered GPA dated 18.04.2013 bearing No.3268 of

2013 (iii) Original registered sale deed dated 03.06.2013 bearing No.4267 of 2013 (iv) Original registered sale deed dated 23.01.2014 bearing No.227 of 2014 and (v) certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate dated 24.04.2024.

5. The respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff filed counter resisting the said application.

6. The trial Court, considering the pleadings and contentions put forth by both the parties, vide impugned order dismissed the said application with an observation that the revision petitioner has assigned only casual ground that the documents mentioned therein were not available with him. Challenging the same, the present Revision is filed.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the trial Court, without considering the fact that the documents sought to be taken on record are referred to in the written statement and in fact, they are not new documents, has erroneously dismissed the application. He further submitted that the documents now sought to be taken on record are crucial and necessary for proper adjudication of the suit, since the said documents include original GPA dated 18.04.2013 bearing No.3268 of 2013, which was sought to be cancelled by the plaintiff in the suit. He further submitted that no prejudice would be caused to respondent No.1 if the application to receive the documents is allowed and in fact, it would only aid the trial Court in proper adjudication of the matter.

8. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for revision petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Levaku Pedda Reddamma and Others Vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma and others,, MANU/SC/0915/2022 wherein it is held that the relevancy of the documents can be examined by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence to be led, but to deprive a party to the suit not to file documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that no proper reasons have been shown by the petitioner for the delay in filing the documents, therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application. He further submitted that Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC specifically states that the defendant has to file documents on which he is relying upon, along with the written statement and if such documents same are not in possession