THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3841 OF 2011 ORDER: The defendant is the petitioner. His sisters – the respondents herein filed a suit being O.S.No.39 of 2009 for partition on the file of the Family Court-cum-the Court of Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry. Their case is that the suit schedule property is ‘Sthridhana’ of their mother and therefore, it has to be divided into four equal shares and three shares should be allotted to them. The petitioner is opposing the suit. He filed the written statement claiming exclusive right over the suit schedule property under two registered and one unregistered Wills allegedly executed by the mother of the plaintiffs and the defendant. He also alleged that after the death of the mother on 19.02.2009, he got the property mutated in the Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation and has been receiving demand notices for payment of house tax. The suit is at the stage of trial. The defendant filed I.A.No.491 of 2011 under Order VIII Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), praying the trial Court to receive the following documents. (1) 24.12.2008 Regn. Entry of Will executed by V.Krishna Rao; (2) 31.03.2003 Registered Will executed by V.Subhadra Devi; (3) 09.04.2008 Registered Will executed by V.Subhadra Devi; and (4) Identity card issued by Prakasamnagar Co-operative Building Society. In the affidavit accompanying the said interlocutory application, he alleged that he obtained the documents subsequent to filing of the suit. The application was opposed by the plaintiffs on the ground that the reasons given for not filing the documents along with the written statement are not sufficient for exercising discretion in favour of the defendant. The learned trial Judge, relying on the decision of this Court in Union of India v Y.S. Hi-Tech Secure Print Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad.[1], dismissed the application holding that the petitioner failed to give proper explanation for delay in filing the documents. The counsel for the petitioner/defendant would contend that the two registered wills, one unregistered Will and the demand notice issued by the Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation were mentioned in the written statement but could not be filed. The other documents which are sought to be filed are the documents connected with the first group of documents and therefore, there cannot be any objection for permitting the defendant to file the documents even at the stage of trial. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents/caveator opposed the Civil Revision Petition. She submits that if the documents are to be filed now, prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs as their evidence is already closed. She relies on the decision referred to hereinabove. After amendment of CPC in 2002, the defendant is required to produce the documents upon which the defence is based. Sub Rule (3) of Rule (1A) of Order VIII CPC bars the defendant from producing the documents, which he ought to have produced along with the written statement. But under sub Rule (1), the bar is not absolute. The defendant, with the leave of the Court, can always produce the documents at the hearing of the suit. In Y.S. Hi-Tech Secure Print Pvt. Ltd., this Court held that the documents can be permitted to be filed by the defendant if adequate reasons are furnished by the defendant. The question, therefore, is whether the defendant has shown proper reasons for granting leave. Indisputably, the defendant referred to four documents in the written statement. The other documents are registration extract of the Will executed by late Sri V.Krishna Rao, the father of the plaintiffs and the defendant, registered settlement deed, identity card issued by Prakasamnagar Co-operative Building Society, four secured bonds and approved plan issued by the Rajahmundry Municipality. The approved plan and the demand notice are certainly evidence in support of the averment in paragraph No.6 of the written statement. Four secured bonds were filed because they allegedly contain the signatures of the testator, late Smt.V.Subhadra Devi. Therefore, though these documents are not found mentioned in the written statement, they certainly corroborate the other documents mentioned therein. Hence, there cannot be any sustainable objection for receiving them. Further, the suit was filed in 2009. Within a period of two years, it has come up for trial. The delay cannot be termed as huge delay as opined by the trial Court. There is no principle of law that under Order VIII Rule (1A) (3), the Court is vested with the jurisdiction to grant leave only in respect of those documents referred to in the written statement. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the impugned order suffers from error requiring correction by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 01.08.2011 in I.A.No.491 of 2011 in O.S.No.39 of 2009 is set aside. The said I.A. shall stand allowed. The trial Court shall now receive the documents. It shall be open to the defendant to raise all the objections with regard to admissibility, evidentiary value and validity or otherwise of the Wills allegedly executed by late Smt.V.Subhadra Devi. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 14th October 2011 RRB [1] 2010 (6) ALD 430