THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.970 of 2010 ORDER: Respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.65 of 2004 in the Court of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada against respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the petitioner for recovery of certain amount. The petitioner filed his written statement independently denying the liability. However, he did not enclose certain documents along with the written statement. At a later point of time, he filed I.A.No.577 of 2009 under Rule 1-A(3) of Order 8 read with Section 151 C.P.C. with a prayer to receive certain documents. These are mostly the certified copies of the orders in the proceedings said to have been instituted against respondent No.3 for recovery of different amounts. The effort of the petitioner was to impress upon the Court that he has nothing to do with respondent Nos.1 and 2 and that respondent No.3 is in the habit of committing default in payment of instalments. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through its order, dated 19.01.2010. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The trial Court was mostly impressed by the amendment carried to C.P.C. by way of introduction of Rule 1-A of Order 8 C.P.C. It is, no doubt, true that the petitioner did not enclose those documents along with the written statement. The fact, however, remains that the documents were not in his possession and he has to secure them from the Courts concerned by submitting applications for certified copies. This, naturally, would take some time. Had he delayed the submission of the written statement till the receipt of the documents, he would have incurred the wrath of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C., which insists that the written statement shall be filed within a stipulated time. Rule 1-A of Order 8 C.P.C., no doubt, insists that the documents must be filed along with the written statement. At the same time, the Parliament took note of the fact that in case the documents are not in the custody of the defendant, they can be filed at a belated stage. The trial Court proceeded on a hyper-technical basis and did not take into account, the fact that the petitioner has to secure the documents from the Courts concerned. Hence, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.577 of 2009 shall stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:21.06.2010 kdl