THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5917 OF 2009 Dated 23rd December, 2009 Between: J.Ramnarayan and another …Petitioners And Bokka Bhaskar Reddy …Respondent The Court made the following ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 10.11.2009 passed by learned III-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, in I.A.No.1322 of 2009 in O.S. No.1647 of 2007, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the application filed under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) CPC to receive the documents mentioned in the list annexed to the application and mark the same as exhibits. The petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. They filed the written statement and the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was closed. At that stage, the petitioners filed the instant application seeking the Court below to receive certain documents. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff/respondent by filing a counter-affidavit, wherein it is stated that the application is silent as to the documents which are sought to be filed and that without stating the reason for not filing the documents along with the written statement, leave cannot be granted and prayed for dismissal of the application. The Court below, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusing the material available on record, dismissed the application holding that most of the documents, which are sought to be received, appear to have been obtained by the petitioners in the year 2007; that the petitioners failed to explain as to why they could not file the said documents along with the written statement and that the Court cannot receive the documents, which are sought to be received in evidence after filing of the written statement, unless the party shows sufficient reasons, which prevented him from filing of the same along with the written statement. The Court below had given cogent and convincing reasons for dismissing the application. The party, who approaches the Court to receive documents after filing of the written statement, has to show sufficient cause for not filing the said documents along with the written statement. The petitioners have failed to explain the reasons for such delay. Hence, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh application giving reasons for the delay in filing the documents and the description of the documents. Liberty as sought for is granted to the petitioners and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J Dated 23rd December, 2009 vrn