The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.913 of 2011 Dated 6th June, 2011 Between: Poleti Dasaradhi and 6 others …Petitioners and Besi Yogeswara Rao and 11 others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Akella Padma Counsel for the respondents: None Appeared The Court made the following: Order: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 03-02-2011, passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sompeta, in I.A.No.5 of 2011 in OS.No.53 of 2006. The petitioners herein are the defendants in the above-mentioned suit filed by the respondents. The said suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners and others claiming through them from interfering with the possession of the respondents in respect of the suit schedule properties. The petitioners filed a common written statement in September, 2006. However, in the year 2011, they have filed IA.No.5 of 2011 seeking condonation of delay in filing copies of certain documents viz., Field Measurement Book, Adangal and Pattadar Pass Books (numbering 5). This application having been rejected, the present Revision Petition is filed. Though notices were served on the contesting respondents i.e., respondent Nos.1 to 6 and 11, neither of them has entered appearance. I have heard Sri A.Padma, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the order under revision would show that the petitioners’ application was rejected on two grounds viz., (1) that they have failed to furnish adequate reasons justifying their failure to file the aforesaid documents along with the written statement and; (2) that those documents are only photocopies and not the original ones. As regards the first reason, under Order VIII Rule 1- A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the document, which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant but is not so produced, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. This provision is introduced by an amendment Act 22 of 2002, obviously, with a view to ensure that the documents filed by the parties at a belated stage are entertained if proper reasons are furnished therefor. In the affidavit filed in support of IA.No.5 of 2011, the petitioners have stated that these documents were mixed up with some other papers, on account of which, they could not be filed along with the written statement. Though the reason put forth by the petitioners appears vague, having regard to the nature of the relief sought for by the respondents viz., permanent injunction and the nature of the documents, which the petitioners are seeking to produce to show that they are in possession of the schedule property, I am of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, the Court below ought to have allowed the petitioners to file the proposed documents. With regard to the second reason assigned by the Court below that the petitioners have produced photocopies, there is no complete bar in law for filing photocopies of public documents. However, the petitioners need to explain the reason for their not filing the original or certified copies thereof. The petitioners are, therefore, permitted to file an affidavit before the Court below explaining the reasons for not producing the certified copies of the proposed documents. On such an affidavit being filed, the Court below shall consider the same and decide on the admissibility of those documents at the time of the trial of the suit after giving an opportunity of being heard to the respondents. Subject to the above observations, Order, dated 03- 02-2011, passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sompeta, in I.A.No.5 of 2011 in OS.No.53 of 2006, is set aside. This Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dated 6th June, 2011 lur