IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5361 of 2010 Between: Mohammad Shanwaj ..... Petitioner AND Amina Bibi & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri D. Ramalingaswami Counsel for respondents 1,2,4-9,11&13: Sri N.G.K. Nair for Sri A. Ravi Shankar The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5361 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 10.02.2010 in I.A.No. 4 of 2010 in RCC.No.1 of 2007, whereby the learned Rent Controller–cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, dismissed the I.A. filed by the petitioner. I have heard Sri D. Ramalingaswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Ravi Shanker, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner, who is the landlord, filed rent control case bearing RCC.No.1 of 2007 for eviction of the respondents. After the oral evidence was recorded, the petitioner has filed the above-noted I.A. to receive the certified copy of STC register by condoning the delay in order to prove his plea that the respondents were convicted for making unauthorized construction in the demised premises without obtaining his permission. This application was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on the ground that though in his petition, the said fact was mentioned, the petitioner has not assigned any reasons for not filing a copy of the same along with the petition. It is no doubt true that Order XIV (1) envisages that the plaintiff shall file all the documents upon which he sues the defendant or relies upon the document, which is in his possession, along with the plaint. However, Rule 3 of Order XIV permits the plaintiff to file such of those documents, which could not be filed earlier by him, with the leave of the Court. In his application, the petitioner specifically stated that as the respondents have denied their conviction, that necessitated him to file the document in question. In my opinion, the petitioner, who is the land lord and filed the RCC seeking eviction of the respondents, did not stand to gain by not filing the document along with the petition for eviction. He has come out with a reasonable explanation for coming up with the application late. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below ought not to have rejected the petitioner’s application to receive the document in order to prove his plea that the respondents have suffered conviction for making unauthorized construction. If the order, dismissing the petitioner’s application, is allowed to stand, the same would result in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed. The Court below is directed to receive the document and mark the same before proceeding further with the RCC. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 29.01.2011 ES