THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3780 of 2009 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.194 of 2006 in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa against the petitioners for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The trial of the suit commenced. The evidence on behalf of the respondent was closed on 02.04.2009. At a time when the evidence on behalf of the petitioners was to commence, they filed I.A.No.57 of 2009 under Order 8 Rule 1-A (3) C.P.C. with a prayer to receive certain documents by condoning the delay. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., it was stated that the copies of the documents have already been presented before the Court and the originals are being filed. The application was opposed by the respondent. Through its order, dated 01.07.2009, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Reliance was placed upon a judgment of this Court in RAVI SATISH vs EDALA DURGA PRASAD[1]. The said order is challenged in this civil revision petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. The trial of O.S.No.194 of 2006 has commenced and the respondent completed his side of evidence. Before commencement of their evidence, the petitioners filed I.A.No.57 of 2009 with a prayer to receive seven documents in original. They categorically stated that the copies of these documents were filed along with the written statement. There is no serious denial or dispute of this assertion. The trial Court took the view that the explanation offered by the petitioners for not presenting the documents along with the written statement is not acceptable. In the Judgment referred to above, this Court held that unless the trial Courts grant leave, the documents, which are not presented along with the written statement, cannot be received at a later stage. Ultimately, it is for the Court to decide whether or not to grant leave for filing documents at a belated stage. No hard and fast rule that guides the discretion of the Court in matters of this nature can be laid. Much would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In certain cases, obviously for the sake of convenience, the copies of documents are filed along with the written statement and the originals are presented at the stage of trial. In other cases, the parties may have to make an endeavour to secure possession of the documents. Therefore, much would depend upon the facts of each case. It has already been mentioned that the copies of the documents have already been presented by the petitioners into the Court. No prejudice can be said to have been caused to the respondent, in case the documents are received. On the other hand, the trial would be complete and perfect, if every possible piece of evidence is taken into account. Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.57 of 2009 shall stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:20.08.2009 kdl [1] 2009(3) ALT 236