HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5234 of 2009 ORDER: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 18.8.2009 in I.A. No. 546 of 2009 in O.S. No.5708 of 2003 on the file of the V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad whereunder and whereby the petition to receive certain documents was allowed. The petitioner is the plaintiff. The respondents are the defendants. The respondents filed the aforementioned application before the trial Court under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking to grant leave to them to file certain documents as per the list appended to the application. The reasons explained by the respondents before the trial Court are that the copies of the documents now sought to be received were kept with the respondent No.3-company; that the respondents were not able to trace those documents so as to file them at appropriate time and, that the delay in filing of those documents is not intentional or wanton. While opposing the petition, the petitioner filed counter affidavit. The trial Court, by the impugned order, allowed the said petition. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the fact that the evidence on the side of respondents is already over, these documents cannot be received at this belated stage and the trial Court ought not to have allowed the application. . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that proper explanation was given for not filing those documents and it is not their case that they filed these documents belatedly with a bad intention to drag on the proceedings. He, therefore prays to dismiss the revision. Under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) provides that a document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under the 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 suit. No doubt, filing of documents after filing of written statement is not a matter of course. Some convincing explanation must be given so as to receive the documents and without the leave of the Court, the documents cannot be received as evidence. Further, all the documents which are sought to be received are certified copies were obtained in the current year. Since the respondents could not file those documents at the time of filing of written statement, they filed the aforesaid application seeking leave of the trial Court to permit them to file those documents now. The reason for not filing the documents along with written statement is that the then executive of 3rd petitioner’s company left the company keeping the documents with him. The delay in filing of those documents cannot be said to be wanton or willful. The trial Court, therefore, rightly exercised its discretion in allowing the petition. However, in view of the fact that the documents in question are sought to be received as evidence, an opportunity is given to the petitioner for adducing rebuttal evidence in respect of those documents. Since the suit is of the year 2003, it is reasonable to direct the trial Court to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is however, made clear that both the counsel in the trial Court shall ensure the presence of their respective witnesses and cooperate with the trial Court for disposal of the case. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ K.C. BHANU,J DATE: 15.11.2010 pnb