THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.5040 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 21.08.2009 passed in I.A.No.646 of 2009 in O.S.No.297 of 2005 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka. 2. The first respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.297 of 2005 for declaration of title and consequential injunction restraining the petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 from interfering with the suit schedule property. When the matter came up for cross-examination of PW1, the first respondent filed the above said I.A. under Order XIII Rule 2 read with Section 151 CPC to receive certain documents as they are concerning the subject matter of the suit and relevant for the purpose of the case. The trial Court on consideration of the rival contentions allowed the said I.A. to receive the petition mentioned documents subject to proof and relevancy. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 filed the present civil revision petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the first respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since Order XIII Rule 2 CPC was deleted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment Act) 1999, the trial Court ought not to have allowed the application and no sufficient reasons were recorded by it. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the learned Judge has given sufficient reasons while allowing the application since all the documents are necessary for proper adjudication and to resolve the controversy in question. He has drawn the attention of this Court by relying upon a decision of this Court in BADA BODAIAH v. BADA LINGASWAMY[1], wherein it was held as under: “If the plaintiff applies for permission or leave to produce documents to be received in evidence at the hearing of the suit which documents were not produced on or before settlement of the issues or at the time of production of the plaint, the Court has to exercise sound discretion having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. Mere non-mention of the documents in the plaint or subsequent incidental or supplemental proceedings in the suit does not in any manner affect the power of the Court to grant leave to produce the documents at the subsequent stage. Non-mentioning of the documents sought to be produced at the subsequent stage is a curable defect. With leave of Court, which is condition precedent under sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of Order VII read with sub- rule (1) of Order 13 to receive the documents, documents can be produced at the time of trial. But Order VII Rule 14(3) being an exception to the rule in Order VII Rule 14(1) as well as Order XII Rule 1(1)(2), the power to grant must be exercised in rare cases and not in a routine manner. 6. It is, no doubt, true that Rule 1 of Order XIII CPC is substituted for Rules 1 and 2 of Order XIII CPC by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment Act) 1999, which reads as under: “Original documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues---(1)The parties or their pleader shall produce on or before the settlement of issues all the documentary evidence in original where the copies thereof have been filed along with plaint or written statement, (2) The Court shall receive the documents so produced: Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in such form as the High Court directs. (3) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents- (a) produced for the cross-examination of the witness of the other party; or (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. In view of the above provision, the contention of the petitioners that mere quoting of a deleted provision does not entitle the person to seek filing of documents cannot be accepted. Therefore, the Court below has exercised its jurisdiction in right perspective and the order impugned does not call for interference by this court. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 05.02.2010 sj [1] 2003(1) ALD 790