THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3159 of 2010 Dated:06.08.2010 Between: Pala Lakshmi Kanthamma. ….Petitioner And Buddana Suryachandrarao. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3159 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.278 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. The said suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the sole defendant – respondent herein from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.3.06 cents in survey Nos.287/1 and 287/2 of Mudunuru Village of Pentapadu Mandal in West Godavari District. The suit is being contested by the respondent. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent filed I.A.No.1564 of 2010 under Order XVI Rules 3 and 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), to summon the registered settlement deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of one Nethala Raja Rao, which was with Mudunuru Large Sized Co-operative Society. The application was ordered on 25.06.2010 and summons were issued to the said Society to produce the document. After completion of the evidence of the petitioner, the respondent filed I.A.No.1648 of 2010 praying the Court below to condone the delay, and receive the documents 1 to 13 mentioned in the list of documents. The same was opposed. Overruling the objections, the Court below allowed the application by impugned order dated 14.07.2010, aggrieved by which, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. Counsel for the petitioner preliminarily contends that as per the provisions of CPC, the defendant is required to file all the documents on which he is relying on in the written statement. Having failed to do so, he cannot file the documents subsequently. Secondly, he submits that while grating leave to file documents under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of CPC, the Court has to give proper reasons, and if the documents are allowed to be filed by the defendant after completion of the evidence of plaintiff, the same would cause prejudice to the petitioner. The parties to a proceeding before a civil Court are permitted to file documents either along with the pleadings or at the time of framing issues or before or after commencement of the trial or during the cross examination or, in appropriate case, by filing applications either under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) or under Order XIII Rule 1 of CPC. The prosecution of a suit is not one sided. Therefore, there might be and ought to be surprises which the party may spring up. In such case, the opposite party has to necessarily seek indulgence of the Court to file additional documents. While entertaining such applications as permitted by law, the Court has to exercise sound discretion. When once the discretion is exercised by the Court below, and permitted the party to the proceedings to produce additional documents, the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India ordinarily may not interfere, unless the exercise of discretion can be faulted on the ground of error therein. In the case on hand, the respondent has given proper explanation for the delay in filing the documents and the Court below was right in allowing the application duly rejecting the marking of document No.11. This Court does not find any infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 06.08.2010 vs