THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5577 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 20.09.2010, in I.A.No.612 of 2010 in O.S.No.95 of 2005 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein-defendants under Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC to receive certain documents, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. Respondents-plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Defendants filed written statement contesting the suit. After framing necessary issues, the trial of the suit has commenced. Plaintiffs’ side evidence was closed after examining P.Ws.1 to 3. Defendants’ side evidence has commenced and D.W.1 was also examined. At that stage, defendants filed two applications-I.A.Nos.612 and 614 of 2010 under Order VII Rule 1-A CPC seeking permission to receive certain documents. Respondents opposed the same by filing counters. By a common order, dated 20.09.2010, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed both the applications mainly on the ground of delay in filing the documents. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed impugning the order in I.A.No.612 of 2010. It is stated that no separate Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.614 of 2010. 4. In I.A.No.612 of 2010, petitioners sought permission to file the documents, namely simple sale deed, dated 10.02.1987, and certain land revenue receipts, numbering eight. According to the petitioner, the said sale deed was held up in another suit i.e. O.A.No.578 of 1991 and therefore the same could not be filed along with the written statement and the petitioner has filed xerox copy of the said document along with the written statement. The trial Court observed that the said suit-O.S.No.578 of 1991 was disposed of on 20.03.1998 and there was no reason for not filing the document either along with the written statement or subsequently. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the said document was filed in the other suit- O.S.No.578 of 1991 and they have taken return of the same only recently and therefore they could not file the same earlier. 6. The trial Court also observed that some of the land revenue receipts were filed in the earlier suit as can be seen from the Court seal found on them. The application came to be dismissed mainly on the ground that the petitioners were not diligent and not only they have not filed the documents along with the written statement, but subsequently also while filing certain documents along with I.A.No.614 of 2010 they have not chosen to file these documents and the conduct of the petitioners in filing the documents piecemeal is indicative of their intention to protract the proceedings. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff would rely upon a decision reported in STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. DISHESH KUMAR SABALKHA AND OTHERS[1], wherein this Court held that in the absence of any proper explanation of the delay and the reason for non filing of the document along with the written statement, refusal of the leave sought for filing the documents at a belated stage does not call for interference. 8. In the affidavit, filed in support of the application, in the above case, no reasons were assigned for the delay and as to why they could not be filed along with the written statement, but in the present case, petitioners have stated that as the sale deed was filed in the other suit-O.S.No.578 of 1991 it could not be filed along with the written statement and so only a xerox copy of the alleged document was filed with the written statement. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon a decision reported in VENGALA NARAYANA REDDY v. VENGALA RAMANA REDDY[2], wherein this Court held that when the plaintiff has not referred to the document in the plaint, dismissal of the application filed at a belated stage warrants no interference. 10. The above decision is also not applicable to the present case for the reason that the documents have been referred to in the written statement and xerox copy of the sale deed also is filed along with the written statement. Now, petitioners only seek to file the original of the sale deed on the ground that he has taken return of the same from the other suit-O.S.No.578 of 1991 only recently. Insofar as the land revenue receipts are concerned, some of the land revenue receipts are already filed in the other suit, as noted by the trial Court also. Hence, there cannot be any objection for receiving the documents though they are filed at a belated stage during the course of the trial. Such a delay can always be compensated by payment of costs. 11. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and I.A.No.612 of 2010 stands restored and the trial Court is directed to receive the documents filed along with the said application, subject to proof and relevancy and also subject to the condition that the petitioners-defendants shall pay costs of Rs.1000/- (rupees one thousand only) to the other side within a period of two weeks to compensate the delay in filing the documents. 12. Civil Revision Petition is allowed accordingly. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 12th August, 2011. Note: Furnish C.C. of the order within two days. B/o Tsy [1] 2010(6) ALD 433 ( DB) [2] 2008 (6) ALD (NOC 76)