THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3130, 3131 and 1383 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Since similar questions arise for consideration in these civil revision petitions, the same are taken up together for disposal by way of common order. C.R.P.No.3130 of 2009 is directed against the order, dated 04-03-2009 made in I.A.No.46 of 2009 in O.S.No.469 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, wherein the said application filed under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 CPC to receive the documents was dismissed. C.R.P.No.3131 of 2009 is directed against the order, dated 04-03-2009 made in I.A.No.45 of 2009 in O.S.No.469 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, wherein the said application filed under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to recall DW.1 for further examination was dismissed. C.R.P.No.1383 of 2009 is directed against the order, dated 04-03-2009 made in I.A.No.44 of 2009 in O.S.No.469 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, wherein the said application filed under Section 151 CPC to reopen the defendant’s side evidence was dismissed. The petitioner in all the Civil Revision Petitions is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.469 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati. The said suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for eviction and damages. It is stated that the plaintiff’s evidence was closed on 18-09-2008 and the defendant’s evidence was closed on 13-11-2008 and when the matter was posted for arguments, the petitioner came up with the aforesaid three applications. The trial court, after hearing both sides and after considering the material available before it, dismissed the said I.As., through common order, dated 04-03-2009. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petitions are filed. The result of C.R.P.Nos.3131 of 2009 and 1383 of 2009 depends upon the result of C.R.P.No.3130 of 2009. C.R.P.No.3130 of 2009 is filed against the order, dated 04- 03-2009 made in I.A.No.46 of 2009 in O.S.No.469 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, wherein the said application filed under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 CPC to receive the documents was dismissed. Under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, the defendant shall produce the documents on which he relies on in his possession or power along with the written statement and if the said documents are not in his possession or power, he is entitled to produce the same as and when he receives the same. But, however, the documents, which ought to have been produced in the court by the defendant are not produced, he cannot produce the same without the leave of the court at the time of hearing of the suit. In the instant case, the petitioner filed I.A.No.46 of 2009 alleging that she has also filed a suit in O.S.No.253 of 2006 and all correspondence of the School was filed in the said suit and some of the documents were misplaced and the same were traced out recently after adducing her evidence, and the present suit is based on the alleged illegal occupation of the defendant claiming damages and, therefore, the said documents are necessary to prove her claim. A perusal of the documents mentioned in I.A.No.46 of 2009 goes to show that they relate to the years 2002, 2003 and 2005. All the documents relate to prior filing of the suit and the said documents ought to have been filed along with the written statement. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the trial court has rightly dismissed the said application observing that the said application is filed only to drag on the suit and there are no reasonable or justifiable grounds to allow the said application. Therefore, C.R.P.No.3130 of 2009 is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, C.R.P.No.3130 of 2009 is dismissed. As C.R.P.No.3130 of 2009, against the order in I.A.No.46 of 2009 rejecting to receive documents, is dismissed, the question of recalling DW.1 for further examination and reopening the defendant’s side evidence does not arise. Therefore, C.R.P.Nos.3131 of 2009 and 1383 of 2009 are also liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, C.R.P.Nos.3131 of 2009 and 1383 of 2009 are also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 13-11-2009 Prv