IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.No.4264 OF 2010 Date:25.03.2011 Between:- Vangapalli Goutham Rao and another ..Petitioners/Plaintiffs And Vengaldas Venkat Narayana and others .. Respondents/defendants ORDER:- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 06- 08-2010 in I.A.No.452 of 2010 in O.S.No.37 of 2003 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed to receive the certified copies of depositions of D.Venkat Narsinga Rao and Raja Gajasimha Rao, who is defendant No.3 herein, in O.S.No.12 of 2001 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Metpalli, was dismissed as no explanation was assigned for not producing the documents earlier. 2. The suit is filed for declaring plaintiff No.2 as an exclusive owner and possessor of suit schedule land, to cancel a registered sale deed bearing document No.319/03, dated 17.03.2003, and to grant a perpetual injunction. Now, the suit is coming up for cross examination of P.W.2. At that stage, the present petition was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs to mark the certified copies of the depositions of D.Venkat Narasing Rao and Raja Gajasimha Rao as exhibits. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since the relevancy and admissibility of these documents can be decided at a later point of time, filing the documents with delay is not a ground to reject the case and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision of this Court reported in Gullipalli Naram Naidu vs. Kinthali Kumaraswami[1], wherein it is held as under: “Order VII and sub-rule (3) of Rule 1-A of Order VIII clearly contemplate the production of evidence with the leave of the Court at the time of hearing of the suit, a stage which is subsequent to the filing of the plaint and written statement, I am of the opinion that the CPC has not provided for a provision which enables the parties to produce such evidence at the conclusion of the trial and before the pronouncement of judgment, the stage which has been clearly envisaged under Rule 17-A of Order XVIII whereunder, the Court may recall a witness at any stage of the suit for examination.” 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that no explanation has been given by the petitioners for not filing the certified copies at the earliest point of time. He relied upon a decision of this Court reported in Union of India vs. Y.S.Hi-Tech Secure Print Pvt.Ltd., Hyderabad[2], wherein it is held as under: “Unless the defendant shows adequate reasons as to why he could not file the documents along with the written statement, leave to receive the documents after filing written statement, cannot be granted. To the very same effect is the law laid down by this Court in the judgments relied upon by the petitioner as well as the respondent.” 5. The primary object of Order VII Rule 14 C.P.C. is to exclude and shut out suspicious documents and the documents, as to the existence of which, there may be reasonable doubt by affording as little opportunity as possible for the production of false or fabricated documents at a later stage. Order VII Rule 14(3) C.P.C. does not contemplate for giving reasons. The only thing the said Rule provides is that the documents shall not be received after filing of the plaint, without the leave of the Court. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. The Civil Revision petition is allowed setting aside order dated 06- 08-2010 in I.A.No.452 of 2010 in O.S.No.37 of 2003 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial. The relevancy and admissibility of the documents sought to be received is left open. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 25th March, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.No.4264 OF 2010 Date:25.03.2011 AMD [1] 2003(2) ALT 406 [2] 2010(6) ALD 430