THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4625 OF 2011 08.12.2011 Between: Chikkala Veera Venkata Satyanarayana … Petitioner AND Nunna Subbalakshmi And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4625 OF 2011 ORDER: The ﬁrst defendant in O.S.No.1222 of 2005 on the ﬁle of the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada is the petitioner. Being aggrieved by order dated 14.10.2011 in I.A.No.540 of 2011, he ﬁled the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The brief fact of the matter by referring to the parties as they are arrayed in the suit may be noticed as follows. The plaintiﬀ (ﬁrst respondent herein) is the wife of the second defendant (second respondent herein). The suit was instituted for perpetual injunction restraining the ﬁrst defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession in respect of the suit schedule land which is agricultural wet land admeasuring Acs.0.58 cents in survey No.155/2 situated at Siripuram Village and Gram Panchayat, Karapa Mandal, East Godavari District. The ﬁrst defendant opposed the suit contending that he purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 01.10.2001 from the second defendant. The suit is at the trial. It appears the second defendant denied execution of the sale deed. Therefore, the ﬁrst defendant obtained registration extract of sale deed dated 01.10.2001 executed by the second defendant in favour of Bikkina Lakshmi Veerrajamma and registration extract of gift deed dated 13.08.2001 executed by the second defendant in favour of his son. He then ﬁled I.A.No.540 of 2011 under Order VIII Rule (1-A) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The said application was opposed. The trial Court dismissed the application holding that the application is belated and in the absence of proper explanation, the same cannot be allowed. Order VIII Rule (1-A) of CPC prohibits the production of documents by defendant, which he ought to have produced with the written statement, subsequently. But with the leave of the Court, the defendant can ﬁle the documents which can be received in evidence. The necessity for ﬁling the two documents by the first defendant arose because of the denial of the sale deed executed in his favour by the second defendant. This would certainly be relevant to rebut the version of the second defendant that he never executed the sale deed dated 01.10.2001 in favour of the ﬁrst defendant. Having regard to the language in Order VIII Rule (1-A), the rejection of the documents ﬁled or produced by the defendant at the belated stage on the ground of delay is not proper. In that view of the matter, this Court ﬁnds error apparent on the face of record. In the result, for the above reasons, the order, dated 14.10.2011 in I.A.No.540 of 2011, passed by the lower Court is set aside. I.A.No.540 of 2011 shall stand allowed and the two documents who are sought to be produced by the petitioner herein/ﬁrst defendant shall be received by the Court below in the evidence, subject to other rules of marking and receiving the documents in evidence. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 08.12.2011 Pln