THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5016 of 2010 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.22 of 2008 against the petitioner in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki for recovery of amount on the basis of a promissory note. The petitioner denied the execution of the promissory note. The trial of the suit commenced. On noticing that there is an averment in the promissory note as well as the plaint to the effect that the petitioner borrowed the amount for his agricultural purposes, the petitioner intended to file a certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Yaddanapudi Mandal, dated 04.02.2010, to the effect that he does not own any land and that he has no agriculture. Since the said certificate was not filed along with the written statement, the petitioner filed I.A.No.591 of 2010 under Rule 1 (3) of Order 8 read with Section 151 C.P.C. The application was opposed by the respondent. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 28.09.2010. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Rule 1-A of Order 8 C.P.C. places an obligation on the defendant to enclose all the documents relied upon by him to the written statement. If for any reason the documents are to be filed at a later point of time, permission of the Court has to be obtained under sub-rule (3) thereof. The petitioner stated the reasons on account of which he could not enclose the certificate, which was obtained subsequently. The trial Court, however, did not concentrate on the timing aspect, which is essential. It has proceeded to decide the relevancy of the document and expressed the view that the document, even if received in evidence cannot conclusively prove the contention of the petitioner. That, however, is totally outside the scope of the exercise contemplated under sub-rule (3) of Rule 1-A of Order 8 C.P.C. It is only when the Court finds that the reasons furnished by defendant for delayed submission of the documents are not satisfactory or that the documents cannot be received in evidence at all, that such an application can be rejected. The findings of the trial Court do not cover either of the aspects referred to above. Once the document is taken on record, the respondent would naturally have an opportunity to overcome it by adducing further evidence or to elicit information from the petitioner himself. Viewed from any angle, the order under revision cannot be sustained. Hence, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. As a result, I.A.No.591 of 2010 is allowed and the trial Court shall receive the document in question, subject to the proof and relevancy. Since the suit is of the year 2008, the trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the same as early as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt.14.07.2011. kdl