HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2241 of 2011 Date:05.08.2011 Between: Voruganti Narayana Rao ..... Petitioner AND Bodla Rammurthy and two others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri V.Raghu Counsel for Respondent : Sri G.Simhadri For Sri K.Venkat Reddy The Court made the following: *HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2241 of 2011 % 05.08.2011 Between: Voruganti Narayana Rao ..... Petitioner AND Bodla Rammurthy and two others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri V.Raghu Counsel for Respondent : Sri G.Simhadri For Sri K.Venkat Reddy < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: 2009(3) ALT 236 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order, dated 01.06.2011, in I.A.No.177 of 2011 in O.S.No.52 of 2001 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the above mentioned suit filed for recovery of suit amount from the respondents on the basis of the promissory note. On 11.02.2011, the petitioner, who was examined as P.W-1, was cross- examined by the learned counsel for the respondents- defendants. After closure of the evidence on the plaintiff’s side, defendant No.3 filed his affidavit in lieu of chief- examination on 22.03.2011. On 08.04.2011, the respondents filed I.A.No.177 of 2011 for receiving seven pronotes into evidence. This application was resisted by the petitioner by filing a counter-affidavit. It is averred by the petitioner in the said counter-affidavit that the respondents have created and brought into existence the pronotes and that, they failed to show any valid and sufficient reasons for not filing them earlier. The Court below, however, while accepting the plea of the petitioner that the respondents failed to file the pronotes at the earlier stage of the case, allowed the application by holding that the respondents have mentioned adequate reasons for not filing them earlier. At the hearing, Sri V.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that even though under Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a discretion is vested in the Court to permit the defendant to produce any document beyond the time stipulated other than at the time of filing the written statement, such discretion can be exercised only if the defendant comes out with proper explanation for not filing them along with the written statement. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Ravi Satish V. Edala Durga Prasad[1]. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that in the affidavit, the respondents have assigned the reason that the documents were not traced earlier and therefore, they could not be filed and that, the Court below having exercised its jurisdiction in favour of the respondents, the impugned order is not liable for interference by this Court. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Rule I of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘C.P.C’) mandates that the defendant shall, within 30 days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence. Proviso to the said Rules, however, envisages that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of 30 days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but, which shall not be later than 90 days from the date of service of summons. Rule 1-A of Order VIII C.P.C., enjoins on the defendant to produce in the Court any document in his possession upon which he bases his defence or relies in support of his defence or claim for set off or counter-claim. When the written statement is presented by him, he shall at the same time, deliver the documents thereof to be filed with the written statement. Rule 1-A(3) of Order VIII C.P.C., postulates that a document which ought to be produced in the Court by the defendant under this Rule, 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. Rules 1-A and 1-A(3) of Order VIII C.P.C., were substituted by Act 46 of 1999 with effect from 01.07.2002. The object with which those Rules were amended was to curb the phenomenal delays in the procedural aspects leading to procrastination of the proceedings before the civil Court. The Parliament has thought it fit to stipulate time limits for the parties to file their defence and produce the documents along with the defence so that the cases can be disposed of without avoidable delays. This being the avowed object with which the above noted provisions are amended, Rule 1-A(3) of Order VIII C.P.C., which on a literal interpretation appears to vest unlimited discretion with the Court, requires to be interpreted so as to advance the intendment of the legislation. The Court before which the defendant produced the said documents after filing of the written statement, therefore, needs to be circumspect in examining whether proper reasons are assigned by the defendant for not producing the documents along with the written statement. Unless the reasons assigned by the defendant discloses sufficient cause for his failure to produce the documents within the time stipulated in Rule 1- A of Order VIII C.P.C., the Court shall not permit the defendant to file such documents later. Undoubtedly, unduly liberal approach in this regard would frustrate the purpose for which the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are amended. This Court in Ravi Satish (cited supra) held that grant of leave by the Court is not for the mere asking nor is the Court a mere post-office to receive documents even in the absence of any reasons furnished for failure to file the said documents along with the written statement. In his affidavit, respondent No.3 stated that they could not file the documents earlier even though they were confronted to the witnesses immediately after they were traced. In the first place, there is no specific plea by the respondents that those documents were misplaced. The respondents have not also pleaded that despite their due diligence, the documents could not be traced. They have also not stated as to when the documents were traced. Even assuming that those documents were misplaced, it is the admitted case that those documents were confronted to P.W-1 during his cross-examination on 11.02.2011. After closure of evidence on the plaintiff’s side, respondent No.3, who is defendant No.3, has filed his affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination on 22.03.2011. The respondents have leisurely filed the I.A. for receiving the documents much thereafter i.e., on 08.04.2011. If the respondents’ plea that the documents could not be traced was correct, nothing prevented them from filing the application either before or at least at the time when those documents were confronted to P.W-1 on 11.02.2011. From these admitted facts, I am of the opinion that the respondents failed to furnish proper and sufficient reasons for receiving the documents at a far too belated stage. The Court below has, therefore, committed a serious error in failing to notice these glaring shortcomings in the case of respondents and holding that the reasons given by the respondents for belated production of the documents are adequate. For the above mentioned reasons, the order under revision is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.3164 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 05th August, 2011 Note: L.R.Copy to be marked. B/o DR [1] 2009(3) ALT 236