THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.No. 3273 of 2010. ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dt. 9.6.2010 in I.A.No. 72 of 2010 in O.S.No. 236 of 2008 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem whereby the petition filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14 (1) r/w Section 151 C.P.C. to receive documents was allowed. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners/defendants and the learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No. 72 of 2010 under Order 7 Rule 14 (1) r/w Section 151 C.P.C. to receive four documents mentioned in the list of documents to be received on the ground that the said documents could not be filed along with the plaintiff as the said documents were mixed in another file. The petitioner/defendants opposed the said petition on the ground that there is there is delay in producing the said documents and the explanation offered by the plaintiff was not convincing and therefore the documents cannot be received at belated stage. The learned trial court having been convinced with the explanation offered by the plaintiff that the documents were mixed in another file and as such they could not be filed within time and also considering that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants if the said documents are received, allowed the petition by imposing a costs of Rs. 500/- on the respondent/plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. The point that arises for consideration is whether the trial court committed any error in receiving the documents at the stage of arguments of the suit. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners has drawn my attention to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 of Order 7 and argued that the court at the stage of arguments has no power to receive the documents and as such he sought to set aside the impugned order. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that in the list of documents filed along with the plaint, there is mention about the documents, which were received by the trial court and by passing the impugned order and therefore it cannot be said that the trial court had not committed any illegality or irregularity. Rule 14 of Order 7 contemplates that the plaintiff has to file the documents along with the plaint. However, sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order 7 lays down that any such document can be received in evidence with the leave of the court. In the instant case, the learned trial court exercised its discretion properly and recorded convincing reasons for receiving the documents. Since the impugned order is passed in exercise of judicial discretion by the trial court, it cannot be said to be an illegal order and this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is not supposed to interfere with the order passed by the trial court in I.A.No. 72 of 2010 in O.S.No. 236 of 2008. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 06.08.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.No. 3273 of 2010. ORDER: DT. 06.08.2010.