THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO :535 of 2011 ORDER: The defendants in the suit, O.S.No.27 of 2006, on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Railway Koduru, Kadapa District, are before this Court by way of the present CRP filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the order dated 28.7.2008 passed by the Court below in I.A.No.592 of 2007 in O.S.No.27 of 2006. By the said order, the Court below disallowed the petitioners/defendants’ application filed under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC to receive the documents (Exs.B1 to B6), which were not filed by them along with the written statement. The order passed by the Court below reflects that the petitioners/defendants failed to explain the delay in the filing of the documents or the source from which the documents were procured. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., no details were put forth by the petitioners/defendants, as rightly pointed out by the Court below. However, in the written statement, the petitioners/defendants adopted the defence that the mother of the 1st defendant was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and stated that the original documents were with third parties. There is, no doubt, non-compliance with the requirements of Order 8 Rule 1A (2) inasmuch as they did not indicate as to in whose possession the documents were. However, as the petitioners/defendants disclosed their stand in the written statement and it is stated that the documents now sought to be adduced in evidence as Exs.B1 to B6 supports such defence, this Court is not inclined to take a technical view of the matter. Sri V. Eswaraiah Chowdary, learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, relied upon the judgment of this Court in Trilokchand Jain Vs. Gurrapu Rajamouli and another[1] in support of his contention that the petitioners/defendants could not be permitted to adduce documentary evidence at this stage. The said case turned on the filing of secondary evidence, in the form of a photo copy, under Section 65 of the Evidence Act 1872, which has no application to the present case as the petitioners/defendants seek to adduce certified copies of the registered sale deeds which would be permissible under Section 65(f) of the Evidence Act, 1872. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the order dated 28.7.2008 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Railway Koduru, Kadapa in I.A.No.592 of 2007 in O.S.No.27 of 2006. The Court below shall permit the petitioners/defendants to adduce the documentary evidence as indicated above and shall dispose of the suit expeditiously. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar Dated:13.6.2011 Nn. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO : 535 of 2011 13.6.2011 [1] 2004(3) ALD 276