THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA C.R.P. No.3757 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order, dated 20.07.2010, passed in I.A.No.283 of 2010 in O.S.No.372 of 2002 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, refusing to receive certain documents as enlisted by the petitioners. 2. The respondents herein instituted O.S.No.372 of 2002 for permanent injunction. The petitioners herein after service of notices, put in their appearance and filed a detailed written statement on 01.07.2002. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the issues. After completion of examination of 20 witnesses on behalf of the plaintiffs, the trial Court adjourned the suit for the evidence of the defendants. At that juncture, the petitioners moved I.A.No.283 of 2010 under Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC seeking to receive certain documents as they are required to decide the question as to whether the plaintiffs i.e., respondents herein, are entitled to injunction or not and the same was dismissed. Hence, this revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the petitioners have filed some pahanies to establish their possession, but the trial Court without considering this aspect, dismissed the said application. 5. The said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents stating that the suit came to an end and the present application is filed only to protract the litigation. 6. Apparently, the suit is instituted as early as in 2002, written statement was filed on 01.07.2002 and the present application under Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC is filed in the year 2010. In paragraph 6 of the order impugned, the Court below discussed with regard to the documents. The list of documents at page 14 of the material papers of this revision shows that the documents are certified copies of pahanies etc. In fact, in a suit for injunction, the documents, such as, pahanies gain a lot of importance and ultimately, the Court may reject the said pahanies, if they are not relevant. But, as stated supra, the said pahanies are relevant for the purpose of deciding the suit. In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that the trial Court erred in refusing to receive the documents. 7. It shall be remembered that the suit is instituted as early as in 2002 and the present application is filed in the year 2010 i.e., after a lapse of 8 years. Hence, this Court is of the view that though the order impugned in this revision is liable to be set aside, if the documents are permitted to be looked into by the trial Court, the petitioners shall be penalized as the same cannot be done without imposing costs. 8. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order impugned is set aside. However, the petitioners are directed to pay costs of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only) to the District Legal Services Authority, Warangal District, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such payment, the trial Court shall receive the documents filed by the petitioners and consequently, I.A. stands allowed. No order as to costs. ___________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Date:19.11.2010 Note: Issue CC within one week. (Bo) sj