THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4689 of 2008 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 12-09-2008 made in I.A.No.700 of 2008 in O.S.No.30 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Piler, wherein the said application filed under Order VII Rule 14 (d) of CPC to receive documents mentioned in the petition as additional evidence was dismissed. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.30 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Piler, against the respondents herein for recovery of a sum of Rs.60,000/- along with interest. It is the case of the plaintiff that it is a Temple represented by the trustee viz., Sri Mara Satyanarayana Murthy and the defendants obtained loan of Rs.60,000/- by executing a registered simple mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff. Out of which, the 3rd defendant paid part of the amount and the defendants are due to pay the suit amount. The defendants filed written statement stating that the plaintiff trust is not a registered one and as such, the plaintiff trust cannot file the suit. The other trustees of the plaintiff trust are not made as parties to the suit and their names were also not mentioned in the plaint. The other trustees are also necessary and proper parties to the suit. A specific plea was taken in the written statement stating that the plaintiff trust said to have been represented by Mara Satyanarayana Murthy has not filed any record to show that he has been authorised to file the suit against the defendants. The said Mara Satyanarayana Murthy has no authorization to file the suit against the defendants and he is not competent person to file the suit. After filing the written statement, issues were framed and after closing the evidence, the suit was posted for arguments. The arguments were advanced on behalf of the plaintiff’s side on 29-07-2008 and thereafter, the suit was posted for defendant’s evidence to 01-08-2008. The defendants also advanced arguments on that day and the matter was posted to 04-08-2008 for reply arguments of the plaintiff, if any. On 04-08-2008, the plaintiff came up with impugned application to receive certain documents. The said application was dismissed by the impugned order, dated 12-09- 2008, relying on various judgments of this court on the ground that the said application has been filed after closing the evidence and when the matter was coming for reply arguments. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Order VII Rule 14 CPC, the said documents can be received with leave of the court and the reasons for not producing the aforesaid documents earlier are that the attested copy of the resolution to prove that he is authorized to file the suit was filed at the time of numbering the suit, but in spite of the same, the other side began to question in the cross examination of PW.1 about his propriety to file the suit stating that he has no right to file the suit and, therefore, he is advised to file the same now, as the other side is very serious of it, though they have not pleaded in the written statement to file the said copy of the Resolution. The said statement made in the affidavit filed by the plaintiff that no such plea was taken in the written statement is not correct. In fact, in the written statement a specific plea was taken stating that the said trustee is not authorized to file the suit. If that be so, it cannot be said that the said objection was not taken in the written statement. Further, the plaintiff has not taken any steps to file aforesaid documents till completion of the trial. In fact, the plaintiff-petitioner also filed I.A. (Sr.).No.3367 of 2008 in O.S.No.30 of 2004 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking permission for amendment of the plaint. Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the court may at any stage of the proceedings allow the amendment of the pleadings, but no such application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial is commenced, unless court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of the trial. In the instant case, it cannot be said that in spite of due diligence, he could not have filed amendment application earlier as specific objection was already taken in the written statement. Further, the amendment application was filed after closing the evidence and when the matter was coming for reply arguments. However, if the petitioner is in possession of the aforesaid documents, he ought to have filed during the course of trial. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to file the aforesaid documents at a belated stage. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the trial court has rightly dismissed the said application and, therefore, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order so as to call for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the order to the extent of imposing costs by the trial court in I.A.No.700 of 2008 is set aside. ___________ 23-10-2009 Prv