THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1820 of 2011 Date:27.8.2011 Between: Shaik Karimullah ………...Petitioner. And Shaik Mahaboob Basha …… Respondent. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1820 of 2011 ORDER: 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 30.03.2011 passed in I.A.No.274 of 2010 in O.S.No.21 of 2004 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Nandalur whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) of CPC. 2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.21 of 2004. He filed the suit for declaration of his title in respect of Plaint ‘B’ and ‘C’ of the suit schedule properties and for consequential permanent injunction and mandatory injunction in respect of ‘C’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. The plaintiff commenced the trial and closed his evidence. When the suit stood posted for evidence of the petitioner/defendant, he moved I.A.No.274 of 2010 under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) of CPC to receive additional documents. The documents sought to be received in additional evidence are :- “1. Original Reg.Sale deed dated 09.09.1991 in favour of Shaik Karimullah-the defendant. 2. Original Approved Plan dated 21.02.1995. 3. Xerox copy of the Compromise Deed dated 15.8.1994 held between the plaintiff’s mother Shaik Khatun Bee and Shaik Karimullah the defendant. (Original is with the plaintiff and his mother).” 3. The plaintiff filed counter resisting the application. 4. The trial Court, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner/defendant has not offered sufficient reasons for grant of leave to file the documents, after commencement of the trial in the suit, and thereby proceeded to dismiss the application by order dated 30.03.2011. Hence this revision. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant submits that the reference of the documents sought to be filed has been made in the written statement and therefore they are not new documents and no new plea is being introduced by the petitioner/defendant. The learned counsel refers Paragraph No.6 of the written statement, which reads has hereunder:- “It is the submitted that the defendant purchased the vacant house site under a Reg.sale Deed dated 09.09.1991 and constructed the building after obtaining the permission and got approval of plan from the Nagireddypalli Gramapanchyat in the year 1994. The plaintiff who is jealous of the defendant construction made objections on flimsy grounds and the then elders Darisa Subramanyam, Faizullakhan Lodi, Noor Basha and others effected mediation and in the presence of the plaintiff the boundaries are fixed and the defendant constructed the building. Thus the defendant constructed the building within the site purchased by him and within the boundaries enjoyed by him and residing in the building by running his Mutton Stall. Thus the plaintiff is estopped to claim any right over the plaint ‘B’ and ‘C’ Schedule property as stated supra and the plaintiff has no right of title possession and enjoyment over the plaint ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule property at any point of time.” 7. The learned counsel in support of his submissions placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Sri Rajah R.V.G.K. Ranga Rao and another v. Nizams Sugars Ltd., Latchayyapeta[1], wherein it has been held that if reasons are explained for seeking to file documents, normally the Court may have to lean in favour of receiving the documents. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the petitioner/defendant has not offered any reason for not filing the documents before commencement of the trial and in the absence of offering any reasons, leave as sought for has been rightly rejected by the trial Court. The leaned counsel in support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in Ravi Satish v. Edla Durga Prasad and others[2] and Union of India, Ministry of Finance, (formerly Ministry of Disinvestments), rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi v. Y.S. Hi-Tech Secure Print Pvt.Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad[3]. 9. In the Ravi Satish’s case (2 Supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court held that the leave of the Court cannot be granted to file documents after filing written statement unless applicant furnishes adequate reasons justifying his failure to file them earlier with written statement. 10. The said decision has been followed in Union of India’s case (3 Supra). The documents sought to be received an additional evidence have been stated supra. It is brought to my notice by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant that certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 09.09.1991 has already been exhibited as Ex.A.15. Such is the situation, granting leave to the petitioner to file the original registered sale deed dated 09.09.1991 is in no way prejudice the claim of the respondent/plaintiff. With regard to the original approved plan dated 21.2.1995, the written statement does not refer to the said plan. What is referred in the written statement is permission granted in the year 1994. With regard to the 3rd document i.e., Xerox copy of the Compromise Deed dated 15.8.1994, no explanation has been made as to what happened to the original compromise deed. 11. In that view of the matter, I find that leave as sought for filing the documents listed at serial Nos.2 & 3 has been rightly rejected by the trial Court. With regard to the original registered sale deed dated 09.09.1991, Xerox copy of the sale deed has already been exhibited as Ex.B3. Therefore, there cannot be any impediment in granting leave to the petitioner to file the original registered sale deed dated 09.09.1991. Accordingly, the order impugned in the revision is modified to the extent of granting leave to file the original sale deed dated 09.09.1991. 12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:27.08.2011 mrb [1] 2004 (1) An.W.R. 408 (A.P) [2] 2009 (3) ALT 236 [3] 2010 (3) ALT 104