THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 1201 of 2011 DATED: 23.11.2011 Between: Sri Y.Suresh Babu and two others. …Petitioners And Sri Jogani Mallaiah and 3 others …Respondents HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 1201 of 2011 O R D E R : The revision petitioners are the defendants 4 to 6 in O.S.No.2251 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff. The suit was originally filed as O.S.No.338 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, West and South, R.R. District for permanent injunction and restraining the respondents 2 to 4 herein from interfering with the suit schedule property. The suit was decreed ex parte and the revision petitioners being the purchasers of the suit schedule property filed A.S.No.66 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, R.R. District with leave to appeal. The said appeal was allowed on 29.09.2006 and the matter was remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal. Questioning the order of remand, the 1st respondent filed C.M.A.No.277 of 2007 before this Court and the same was dismissed by order dated 27.04.2007. Thus, the revision petitioners were impleaded as defendants 4 to 6 and thereafter, they filed a detailed written statement contesting the suit claim. After the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was closed, defendant No.4 got himself examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.37 documents were marked through him. Thereafter, the affidavit of D.W.2 in lieu of chief-examination was filed. At that stage, the revision petitioners/defendants 4 to 6 proposed to produce certain documents in evidence through D.W.2 and filed I.A.No.79 of 2011 under Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) of C.P.C. seeking leave of the Court to receive the said documents. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 18.02.2011 and aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. Order VIII Rule 1-A of C.P.C. provides that the defendants shall produce the documents upon which the relief is claimed or relied upon by him, when the written statement is presented by him. As per Rule 1-A (3), a document which ought to be produced in the Court by the defendant, but was not so produced can be received in evidence on his behalf on the leave of the Court. In the present case, the suit is filed for injunction simplicitor. The suit schedule property has been described as House bearing Municipality No.2-74/1 admeasuring 1000 sq. yards situated at Chandanagar Village. The plaintiff claims that the suit property is the ancestral property and that the same has been in possession of his forefathers for the past more than 100 years and that he acquired title and possession by succession. It is stated that the suit house was originally numbered as ‘2-74’ when it was under the Chandanagar Gram Panchayat. According to the plaintiff, after formation of Serilingampally Municipality the suit house is renumbered as ‘Municipality No.2-74/1’. Alleging that the defendants who have no right, title or interest over the suit house attempted to interference with the peaceful possession, the suit for injunction has been filed. On the other hand, the case of the defendants 4 to 6/ revision petitioners is that no property is existing with house number either 2-74 or 2-74/1 and there is no dwelling house as claimed by the plaintiff. According to the defendants 4 to 6, House No.2-1 was allotted by the then Gram Panchayat to an old existing house comprising about 1800 sq. yards situated in Gramakantham of Chandanagar village. The said house was owned by Dr. C.B. Srinivasa Rao and his brother C.B. Namdev who had divided the said property into seven plots and all the said plots were sold away to different persons. Plots 1 to 4 which included the premises bearing No.2-1 were sold to K. Lakshmi, R. Eswaraiah, P. Sakuthala Bai and K. Prakasa Rao under registered sale deeds in the year 1984. The said purchasers jointly constructed a building after obtaining sanction from HUDA vide proceedings dated 25.10.2001. The said building was purchased by M/s. Empress Hotels and Resorts Private Limited under a Registered Sale Deed, dated 8.7.2002. Thereafter under a registered lease deed dated 22.11.2004 M/s. Empress Hotels and Resorts Private Limited leased out the building to M/s. Sindhuri Hotels and Resorts Private Limited and the said lessee is running hotel ‘Swagath Residency’. The defendants 4 to 6 claim to have purchased Plot Nos. 5 & 6 apart from a small piece of 7.33 sq. yards under a registered sale deed dated 17.04.2003. They also claimed to have purchased Plot No.7 in the year 2006. According to them a building bearing H.No.2-73 is situated on the Eastern side of the suit property. It is claimed that two mulgies purchased by the defendants 4 to 6 form part of the said House No.2-73. Thus it is claimed that the defendants 4 to 6 have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property eversince the date of their purchase. Admittedly the defendant No.4 got himself examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B-1 to B-37 documents were marked through him. Thereafter, one of the Directors of M/s. Empress Hotels and Resorts Private Limited which claims to have purchased the suit property under the Registered Sale Deed dated 8.7.2002 was sought to be examined as D.W.2 and his affidavit in lieu of chief-examination was filed in January, 2011. At that stage, the revision petitioners/defendants 4 to 6 filed I.A.No.79 of 2011 under Order 8 Rule 1A of C.P.C. seeking leave to produce three documents namely certified copy of the Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney, dated 7.11.2001; Sale Deed, dated 8.7.2002; and Lease Deed 22.11.2004 stating that the said documents are very much relevant to the facts in issue and that they could obtain the certified copies only a couple of days back. The said application was dismissed primarily on the ground that the documents sought to be produced were not related to the suit house. The Court below observed that the documents sought to be produced related to House No.2-1, whereas the suit house is 2-74/1. On a careful consideration of the material available on record, I am of the opinion that the Court below was not justified in declining to grant leave on the ground that the documents sought to be produced are not related to the suit house. As could be seen from the pleadings of the rival parties, there is a dispute with regard to the very identity of the suit property. Therefore, the Court below ought not to have concluded that the documents sought to be produced had nothing to do with the suit property. Any finding with regard to the rival claims can be recorded only on appreciation of the evidence adduced by both the parties. Therefore, the Court below ought not to have assumed at this stage that the documents in question were not related to the suit house. In fact, while exercising jurisdiction under Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) of C.P.C., it is not necessary for the Court to go into the relevancy of the documents. At that stage, the Court has to consider whether sufficient cause could be shown by the defendants for not producing the documents when the written statement was presented. Hence, the order under revision cannot be sustained. In the light of the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in I.A.No.79 of 2011, this Court is satisfied that the defendants had properly explained the reasons for not producing the documents in question at the time of filing of the written statement. Hence, it is a fit matter for granting leave as provided under Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) of C.P.C. Accordingly, the order under revision is hereby set aside and I.A.No.769 of 2011 is allowed. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 23.11.2011 KLP/GBS