THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 4220, 4221 and 4289 OF 2010 Dated: 21.01.2011 Between: Narla Kasinadham ..... Petitioner And Patibanda Mohana Mallikarjuna ….. Respondent The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 4220, 4221 and 4289 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER : The plaintiff in O.S.No.107 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru is the revision petitioner. The suit is filed for specific performance of an oral agreement dated 12.02.2004. The defendant filed the written statement contending inter alia that he never agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. During the trial, both the parties adduced the evidence to substantiate their respective claims. While the suit was coming up for arguments, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1001 of 2010 with a prayer to receive the document dated 12.05.2003 as evidence on his behalf and for the said purpose he also filed I.A.Nos. 1002 of 2010 and 1027 of 2010 to reopen the suit for plaintiff’s evidence and to recall PW.2. I.A.No.1001 of 2010 was dismissed by order dated 10.08.2010 and consequently I.A.Nos.1002 of 2010 and 1027 of 2010 were also dismissed. Aggrieved by the said orders, these three revision petitions have been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. At the outset, it is to be noticed that there is absolutely no plea in the plaint with regard to the registered sale deed dated 12.05.2003 sought to be produced by the plaintiff/revision petitioner in evidence. Even in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1001 of 2010, nothing was explained as to why the said document had not been produced in the first instance along with the plaint or at least while the evidence was going on. Hence, the application was dismissed by the Court below holding that though the document was in his possession, the plaintiff did not assign any reason for not filing the same. It was also observed by the Court below that the application was filed with a view to drag on the proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner while pointing out that the hearing in the suit has not yet been taken up, contended that the Court below is not justified in rejecting the petitioner’s request for marking the document in question. In support of the said submission the learned counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in Sultan Saleh Bin Omer vs. Vijayachand Sirimal[1], wherein it was held that the parties were not precluded from advancing further evidence before the case was posted for judgment. It is to be noticed that by virtue of the amendment to Code of Civil Procedure under Act No.46 of 1999 with effect from 01.07.2002, Order VII Rule 14 has been substituted and as per the amended provision, the plaintiff is bound to produce the documents upon which he relies upon when the plaint is presented. Sub-rule 3 of Rule 14 makes it further clear that when a document, which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff was not presented, the same cannot be produced or entered in evidence except with the leave of the Court. In view of the said amendment, no fresh document can be produced without obtaining the leave of the Court and therefore, the decision cited by the learned counsel has no relevance to the case on hand. It is clear from the order under revision that the Court below on application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and having found that the plaintiff did not assign any reason for not filing the document along with plaint, declined to grant leave. The said discretion exercised by the Court below cannot be termed as arbitrary or perverse and therefore, the Court below cannot be held to have committed any error in dismissing the I.A.Nos. 1001 of 2010, 1002 of 2010 and 1027 of 2010. Hence, the interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not warranted. Accordingly, the three Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 21.01.2011 Ivd [1] 1966 (1) ANWR 22