THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3288 OF 2009 ORDER: Petitioners are the plaintiffs. They filed this revision petition aggrieved by the order dated 3.7.2009 passed in I.A.No.145 of 2009 in O.S.No.385 of 2006 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Medchal allowing the petition filed by the defendant under Order 8 Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 CPC seeking to receive the documents viz., 1) CC of Sale deed executed by the plaintiff, 2) Certificate of Incorporation and 3) Land Use Certificate. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no proper reasons were given by the defendant for not filing the documents along with the written statement and failure to do so has deprived them the opportunity to file the rejoinder and, therefore, the lower court ought to have rejected the application filed by the defendant. Whether the applicant has made out sufficient cause in the application filed seeking leave of the court to receive the documents, which were not filed at the time of filing the written statement itself, the Court is required to look at all the facts pleaded in the application and take a decision by using its discretion on sound principles and not on mere technicalities. Admittedly, the main suit is filed seeking the relief of injunction simplicitor and the plaintiffs who seek such relief have to establish their possession in the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The case of the defendant before the Court below is that at the time of filing the written statement, it could not file the present documents as they were not in its custody. Considering the contentions advanced by both the parties as also the decisions relied on by them, the Court below found that since the Court cannot go into the admissibility and relevancy of the documents at the stage of producing them itself and can go into such questions at the stage of hearing of the suit, leave can be granted subject to the petitioner furnishing adequate reasons and thus allowed the petition. The main case of the defendant was that along with the written statement he could file only certain documents and the documents, which are now sought to be filed were not available with it at that time. Since the courts shall not adopt a hyper technical approach in exercising the discretion and since giving one more opportunity to the defendant would not cause any prejudice to the plaintiffs and they will also get an opportunity to disprove the case of the defendant by testing the truth or otherwise of the said documents, the Court below rightly allowed the application filed by the defendant, which, in my considered, opinion does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. For the foregoing reasons, the revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. N.V.RAMANA,J DT. ..8..2009 msv