THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.Nos.3151 & 3156 of 2010 Date : 1-10-2010 CRP No.3151/2010 Between : The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the District Collector, Kurnool and others .. Petitioners and E.Mantahamma w/o.E.Manthaiah .. Respondent CRP No.3156/2010 Between : The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the District Collector, Kurnool and others .. Petitioners and E.Jayanna s/o.E.Manthaiah .. Respondent The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.Nos.3151 & 3156 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two Civil Revision Petitions raise common issues of facts and law and therefore they are heard and being disposed of together. The petitioners in these Revision Petitions are defendants in O.S.Nos.248/2008 and 247/2008 and respondents in I.A.Nos.468/2009 and 466/2009 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur. The respondents have filed the above mentioned suits for permanent injunction against the petitioners restraining them from interfering with their possession of the suit schedule properties. The above mentioned I.As. were filed by the respondents in their respective suits for temporary injunction against the petitioners. The petitioners have filed written statements in the suits and also counter affidavits in the I.As. When the I.As. were coming up for hearing, the petitioners have filed I.A.Nos.363/2009 and 361/2009 under Order VIII Rule 1- A(3) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the Code”) for receiving three documents, namely, awards, notices issued under Sections 9(3) and 10 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) and acquittance registers. These applications were dismissed by the lower court on the sole ground that the petitioners failed to give satisfactory explanation for not filing the said documents, either along with the counter affidavits filed in the injunction applications or with the written statements. Having so held, the lower court observed that the applications are premature and the petitioners are at liberty to move the applications at appropriate time if so advised. In my opinion, the lower court has not examined the cases from proper perspective and it has failed to consider the background in which the applications are filed by the petitioners. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that the suit schedule lands were acquired by them under awards passed under the provisions of the Act after following the procedure prescribed therein. These documents are therefore essential for the court below to adjudicate on the injunction applications as well as the suits themselves because if the suit schedule properties were validly acquired, the question of the court granting injunction, either temporary or permanent, does not arise. Therefore, for proper and effectual adjudication of the injunction applications and also the suits, the documents sought to be produced by the petitioners are essential. Under Order VIII Rule 1-A of the Code, the defendant shall produce in court all the documents at the time of filing of the written statement. However, with the leave of the court, the documents which were not so produced can be filed under sub-rule (3). This provision thus vests wide discretion in the court to receive the documents. However, such discretion shall be exercised keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. In my opinion, the lower court has failed to keep in mind the importance of the documents which are sought to be produced by the petitioners and has adopted a rather conservative approach in rejecting the applications only on the ground that the documents were not filed along with the written statements. The court below has failed to exercise the discretion vested in it in dismissing the applications of the petitioners. For the above mentioned reasons, the orders under Revisions are set aside. I.A.Nos.363/2009 and 361/2009 are allowed. The respondents are, however, given liberty to raise all legally permissible objections to the validity or authenticity of the documents sought to be produced by the petitioners. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly allowed. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J Date: 1-10-2010 AM