THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2551 OF 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 18.06.2008, in I.A.No.848 of 2008 in O.S.No.446 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed by the respondents/defendants, under Order VIII Rule 1A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “C.P.C.”), to receive the documents i.e., Sale Deed, dated 12.03.2004; Deed of Rectification, dated 29.02.2008; Rectification of Sale Deed, dated 18.04.2007 and Sale Deed, dated 05.05.1995, was allowed. 2. Heard. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondents herein/defendants have not given any reason for not filing the said documents along with the written statement; that those documents are created subsequently for the purpose of present suit and to fill up the lacunae after the petitioners/plaintiffs evidence was completed, the present application is filed to drag on the proceedings and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. Under Order VIII Rule 1A clause (1) C.P.C., where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set-off or counter-claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement under Clause (3) of same Order. A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. 5. The explanation given by the respondents herein is that recently they could get the documents sought to be received and therefore, they could not file the same earlier, and those documents are required for cross examination of plaintiffs’ witnesses. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners herein is that the documents are fabricated subsequent to filing of written statement to suit the case and cannot be accepted at this stage. That aspect of the case has to be decided after adducing necessary evidence. Mere receiving of documents does not mean that they are relevant and admissible unless it is shown that prima facie they are not relevant. Even the trial Court observed that the receipt of documents shall be subject to proof and relevancy. So, exercising the power under above provision, the trial Court rightly allowed the petition to receive the documents. Therefore, there are no grounds to set aside the impugned order. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Since, the Original Suit is of the year 2004, the trial Court shall dispose of the suit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J September 23, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2551 OF 2008 Between: Penchala Sarojana and others .....PETITIONERS AND Shaik Nabi Rassol and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2551 OF 2008 September 23, 2010