THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1810 OF 2021

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 19.03.2021 in I.A.No.32 of 2020 in O.S.No.28 of 2018, wherein the Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants Nos.1-4, seeking to declare the plaintiff as the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, for recovery of arrears of rent and for possession thereof, and to declare the registered lease deed bearing No.3762/2016, dated 24.06.2016 as null and void and for subsequent relief or injunction.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner herein, who is defendant No.1 in the suit, filed the written statement on 07.12.2016, and it is an admitted fact that no documents were filed at the time of filing of written submissions. The present application, I.A.No.32 of 2020, was filed on 18.03.2020 seeking to receive certain documents by condoning the delay in filing the documents along with the written statement. It is further contended that the same could not be filed along with the written statement as all the documents were in possession of the previous president of the society and said that they could not be filed subsequent to the trial and only upon a serious search the said documents were traced.

3. Before the trial Court, it is averred that the said documents are material for the disposal of the suit and if they are not received by condoning the delay, it would result in great loss and hardship, which cannot be compensated by any means and all the documents are public documents.

4. In reply to the same, the respondent has filed a counter before trial Court denying the allegations mentioned in the petition and averred that there was no documentary evidence to prove that the President was elected on 22.10.2017 and that his term was extended for further two years. The respondent also denied the possession and sale of the land admeasuring Ac.0.14 guntas and also alleged that the documents i.e., minutes book, house tax assessment register, by laws, lease deed document are all false and they are created behind the back of the respondent/plaintiff and the defendants have no right or title over the said property in any manner and the same are void and not binding and all are fabricated and created recently for the purpose of this case.

5.

Having heard both sides and after considering the judgment filed by the plaintiff reported in U.Venkatramma v. V.Ravinder Reddy in 2019(5) ALD 210 (TS). The learned trial Court has allowed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed by the plaintiff.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued and contended that the documents which are filed are all created and are filed more than five years after the date of filing of the written statement, and contended that as per Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) read with Section 51 CPC, no documents shall be file1d without the leave of the Court unless proper reasons has been shown for non- filing of the same and he also argued and contended that the order which is passed by the learned judge is erroneous on a ground that the said documents are all created and no proper reasons were explained and the delay was not properly explained and the said application ought not to have been allowed for the reasons that the same was filed after the pleadings are completed and issues are framed and the trial has been commenced in the suit and filing of the said documents to cover up the lacunae is impermissible and the said documents having been filed at the belated stage, though contending as they are public documents the same can be received and he relied upon the judgments i.e.2019(5) ALD 210 (TS), of Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad between U.Venkatramma v. V.Ravinder

2019(5) ALD 210 (TS)

Reddy in CRP No.557 of 2019 and prayed to allow the revision petition.

7. In contra, th