THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3562 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.169 of 2007 in the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole against the respondents for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The trial of the suit commenced and it is stated that the evidence on behalf of the petitioner was concluded. The respondents are yet to commence their evidence. At that stage, they filed I.A.No.384 of 2011 with a prayer to receive six documents on record to be inducted as evidence. The application was opposed by the petitioner. The trial Court allowed the I.A. through order, dated 24.06.2011. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is, no doubt, true that the defendant in a suit is required to mention the list of documents in the written statement itself. However, the C.P.C. provides for a facility to submit the documents at a belated stage also. For that purpose, the reason for delay must be stated and ultimately, it is for the Court to satisfy itself as to whether there was proper justification for the party in delayed submission of the documents. There cannot be any hard and fast rule to the effect that the documents cannot be received beyond a point of time. If one takes into account, the scheme under C.P.C., it emerges that even at a stage of appeal, the documents can be received in evidence if an application under Rule 27 of Order 41 C.P.C. is filed. The only requirement is that the Court must verify as to whether there was any justification for the delayed submission. The ultimate effort is to ensure that the contentions of the parties together with the evidence in its entirety are considered before final conclusion is arrived at on the dispute. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon two judgments rendered by this Court in BOLLA AJAY BABU vs. NALLA MANIKYAMMA[1] and G.SANJEEVA REDDY vs. INDUKURU LAKSHMAMMA[2]. A perusal of the same discloses that nowhere, it was laid that such of the documents, which are not mentioned in the written statement, cannot be taken on record. Further, a harmonious construction must be placed upon Rule 2 of Order 6 C.P.C. on the one hand and the one, which requires the mentioning of the documents in the appendix to a pleading, on the other. Rule 2 of Order 6 C.P.C. mandates that the pleading shall not contain the evidence. The petitioner would certainly have an opportunity to deal with the documents either by cross examining the witnesses, who may be examined by the respondents, or by reopening their evidence and to enable their witnesses to deal with the said documents. No prejudice can be said to have been suffered by the petitioner. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 26.08.2011. kdl [1] 2010 ALD (1) 163 [2] 2006 ALT (3) 66