THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition No.4125 of 2024

ORDER :

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article

227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 10.12.2024 passed in I.A.No.724 of 2024 in O.S.No.25 of 2018 by the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Shadnagar (for short ‘the impugned order’).

2. Heard Mr.S.Ram Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Ramachandra, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.

3. Vide the impugned order, the trial court has allowed the I.A. filed by the defendant Nos.3 to 5 under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for short ‘C.P.C’).

4. Vide the impugned order, the trial court has granted leave to the petitioners to receive documents mentioned in the said I.A.

5. It is relevant at this juncture to mention the fact that the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent in this case is a suit for declaration. The defendant Nos.3 to 5 upon notice entered appearance and filed their written statements, however, along with the written statement or at later stage, they did not filed certain documents in support of their defence. Subsequently, the suit progressed and the plaintiff’s evidence was concluded and thereafter while the defendants’ evidence have commenced, the defendant Nos.3 to 5 before their evidence could be started moved a petition under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) seeking leave of the court to produce certain documents.

6. It was specifically contended by the party before the court that the documents which they intend to bring on record was the certified copies of documents which were already marked and exhibited in yet another suit in respect of the very same subject land i.e., in O.S.No.30 of 2016 where the defendant Nos.3 to 5 are infact the plaintiffs and the said suit is for perpetual injunction.

7. It was this application which stood allowed by the trial court which is under challenge in the present civil revision petition.

8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner plaintiff is that the defendant Nos.3 to 5 have not been able to fully justify as to what prevented them from filing these documents when the written statement was filed or even before the issues were framed or at an earlier stage. It was also the contention of the petitioner that though these documents marked and exhibited in O.S.No.30 of 2016 but the petitioners herein were not a party to the said O.S.

9. It was also the contention of the petitioner that in the application/petition under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) of C.P.C, the petitioners have not shown any bonafide and justifiable grounds which necessitated the production of these documents in support of their defence in the instant suit. Nor has the defendant Nos.3 to5 disclosed the relevance of these documents so far as the suit is concerned suit filed by the plaintiff is concerned and for all these reasons, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for quashment of the order dated 10.12.2024.

10. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Harkesh Singh v. Ved Raj, 2010 SCC Online Del 397.. He also relied upon the decisions of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of K.N.Sharma v. Mukesh Kumar Varma, Civil W.P.No.10843/2015. and in the case of Dinesh Hingar v. Kishanlal, Civil W.P.No.1393 of 2024. contending that the petition under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) could not had been allowed by the trial court as a matter of routine without there

being any justifiable grounds and materials available to shown the delay that has arisen in filing these documents.

11. At this juncture, what is relevant to be considered is the fact that the defendant Nos.3 to 5 has already had filed their petition under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) for ready reference, the said rule is reproduced herein under:

Rule 1A (3): A document which ought to be produce