CRP 411/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Mr D. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners, who are the defendants in Title Suit No.117/2007, by th is petition, have challenged the order dated 16th July 2010 passed by the learne d Munsiff No.1, Nagaon in the suit, rejecting the petition filed under Order 13 Rule 10 of CPC. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that sin ce the petitioners/defendants could not file the documents on which their defenc e is based, in time, the learned court below ought to have allowed the petitione rs to file those documents by invoking the jurisdiction under Order 13 Rule 10 C PC since no prejudice would be caused to the other party, and on the other hand, if they are not allowed, their defence may fall through. It would appear from the impugned order dated 16th July 2010 that there is absolutely no reason cited in the application filed under Order 13 Rule 10 of CPC, which is one of the reasons for which the learned court below has refused to grant the prayer made therein. That apart, the application, previously filed by the petitioners under Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) of CPC, has been rejected by the le arned court below. It would appear from the petition filed under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC that there is no ground cited as to why the petitioners could not file those document s on which their defence based, at the time, as required under Order 8 Rule 1ACP C. In the absence of any cause shown in the said application, I am of the v iew that the learned court below has rightly rejected the prayer of the petition ers, which requires no interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Articl e 227 of the Constitution. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.