THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.2420 and 2485 of 2011 Date:29th July, 2011 Between: Smt.Obulampalli Venkateswaramma .....Petitioner (In both CRPs.) AND 1. Nandyala Venkata Subba Reddy & Anr. .....Respondents (In both CRPs.) *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.2420 and 2485 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: These two Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the order, dated 16.06.2011 passed in I.A.No.711 and 699 of 2011 in O.S.No.16 of 2008 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Kadapa, respectively, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed both the petitions – one filed under Order XVIII, Rule 17 CPC seeking permission to recall PW.1 for cross-examination; and another filed under Order VIII, Rule 1A r/w.Sec.151 CPC seeking to condone the delay in filing the documents. 2. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs and whereas, the petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.No.16 of 2008 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Kadapa. The petitioner/defendant is the owner of the land admeasuring Ac.3.69 cents situated in Circar Punji D.No.90, Putlampalli village fields, Kadapa District. The respondents/plaintiffs agreed to purchase the property owned by the petitioner at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per cent and the terms of sale came to be reduced into writing on 20.04.2006. Certain amounts have been received by the petitioner/defendant. Subsequently, the respondents/plaintiffs, having found that the petitioner/defendant has no valid title over the property, filed O.S.No.16 of 2008 for return of the amount paid to the petitioner/defendant. The petitioner/defendant entered appearance in the suit and filed written statement. Issues came to be settled and the respondents/plaintiffs adduced evidence on their behalf. Before commencement of the evidence on behalf of the petitioner/defendant, she filed I.A.No.699 of 2001 under Order VIII, Rule 1A r/w. Sec.151 CPC seeking leave to file certain documents. She also filed I.A.No.711 of 2011 under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC seeking to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination. In the affidavit filed in support of the petitions, she stated that she filed the documents in O.S.No.446 of 2005 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, and therefore, she could not produce the said documents before commencement of trial. The respondents/plaintiffs filed counter resisting the petitions. The learned Additional District Judge, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner/defendant failed to give sufficient reasons for granting leave to file documents after the commencement of the trial and thereby proceeded to dismiss both the petitions. Hence, these Civil Revision Petitions. More precisely, CRP No.2420 of 2011 is directed against the order, dated 16.06.2011 passed in I.A.No.711 of 2011 and CRP No.2485 of 2011 is directed against the order, dated 16.06.2011 passed in I.A.No.699 of 2011. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant and learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant submits that the petitioner/defendant could not produce the documents since they were filed in O.S.No.446 of 2005 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, and the petitioner/defendant got return of the documents and produced the same in the suit and thereby delay occurred in filing the documents. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs submits that the petitioner/defendant has not offered sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the documents and even otherwise, the documents sought to be filed are not much material for proper adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. In a way his contention is that the respondents/plaintiffs sought return of the money on the ground that the petitioner/defendant failed to furnish the information to the respondents/plaintiffs about the pending litigations and not on the ground of defect in her title to the property. 6. Order VIII, Rule 1A CPC reads as hereundrer: “1A. Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him. (1) Where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set off or counter claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this 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 the suit. (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to documents – (a) produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, or (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.]” 7. What is required by the above referred Rule is that the defendant has to seek leave in case the documents are sought to be filed after settlement of the issues. In the affidavit filed in support of the petitions, the petitioner/defendant pleaded that the documents enclosed to the petitions were filed in O.S.No.446 of 2005 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, and she got return of the same and produced the same in the suit. Of course, the petitioner/defendant has not given the date on which she took return of the documents. Since the documents sought to be received are the registered sale deeds evidencing the title of the petitioner/defendant, the delay in filing the documents can be condoned subject to certain terms and conditions. 8. In that view of the matter, both the CRPs are allowed setting aside the orders, dated 16.06.2011 passed in I.A.No.711 of 2011 and 699 of 2011 in O.S.No.16 of 2008 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Kadapa, subject to the petitioner/defendant paying costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) each within two weeks from today. The petitioner/defendant shall complete her evidence in two sittings. The trial Court has to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:29th July, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.2420 and 2485 of 2011 Date:29th July, 2011