THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3461 OF 2025

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.07.2025 passed in I.A. No. 288 of 2025 in I.A. No. 816 of 2023 in O.S. No. 420 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajanna Sircilla.

2. Heard Mr. B. Arjun Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Smt. B. Shirisha, learned counsel for the respondent.

3.1. The revision petitioners, who are defendants in the suit, filed a petition under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking permission of the trial Court to receive certain documents on record.

3.2. The trial Court, upon consideration, dismissed the petition observing that the documents sought to be produced were irrelevant, inadmissible, and unjustified, thereby declining to receive them. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed.

4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the documents sought to be filed are public records relating to proceedings initiated by the respondent/plaintiff herself before the District Collector during the pendency of the interlocutory application in the suit. He contends that these documents are relevant for effective adjudication of the lis, as they reflect subsequent developments before revenue authorities having a bearing on the property in dispute.

4.2. He further submits that the petitioners merely sought to bring these documents on record, leaving their relevance, admissibility, and evidentiary value to be determined at the appropriate stage of trial. Placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, (2001) 3 SCC 1 and R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami Temple, (2003) 8 SCC 752, he argues that rejection of documents at the stage of filing amounts to premature adjudication and undermines the right of parties to present their full case. Thus, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and for a direction to the trial Court to receive the documents in question and consider them at the appropriate stage.

5.1. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supports the impugned order and submits that the trial Court rightly exercised its discretion. She contends that the petitioners’ attempt to introduce new documents at this advanced stage was belated, particularly when their written statement and prior documentary evidence were already on record.

5.2. She further submits that the documents sought to be introduced were issued by the revenue authorities subsequent to the filing of the suit, and no corresponding pleadings exist in the written statement to justify their admission. Therefore, the trial Court, having observed that the documents were post-suit developments and unrelated to the original cause of action, rightly dismissed the petition.

6. I have perused the material available on record and considered the submissions of both learned counsel.

7. It is an admitted position that the petitioners filed the present application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) CPC seeking permission to produce nine (9) documents which came into existence after institution of the suit. The pending interlocutory application (I.A. No. 816 of 2023) relates to the same dispute, and the documents in question appear to be relating to proceedings initiated by the respondent/plaintiff before the District Collector, as evidenced by the representation dated 07.10.2024. Since the suit was filed in 2023, it is evident that these documents reflect subsequent proceedings initiated by the plaintiff post-suit. The petitioners seek to bring them on record to demonstrate those developments and their bearing on the pending issues.

8. Under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) CPC, the Court has discretion to receive documents at any stage of the proceedings, if sufficient cause is shown for their non-production earlier. The rule mus