Judgment : 1. This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 15.10.2009, passed by the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 254 of 2009 in O.S. No. 145 of 2007, praying to receive the documents by condoning the delay in filing the same. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents which the petitioner sought to file are those with respect to which reference is made in the written statement, and considering the fact that the respondent made his claim based on concocted documents, it is appropriate that they should be received. He submitted that it is quite natural that in the Government because of administrative reasons, delays do take place, and considering such administrative reasons, a lenient view has to be taken, and the documents which the petitioner sought to receive, have to be received by condoning the delay, else the petitioner would be adversely affected. In support of his argument that to meet the ends of justice, the Court has ample power to grant leave to the defendant to file documents, which he could not file along with the written statement, at a later stage, placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Sirugudi Adinarayana v. Bodla Mariamma 2004 (4) ALT 1 and Dugaputi Sudhakar Reddy v. Avulapati Shankar Reddy 2005 (2) ALT 417 . 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has not shown any reason as to why they could not file the documents, which they now sought to receive by condoning the delay, and in the absence of any reason assigned by the petitioner, the Court below has rightly dismissed the present application filed by the petitioner praying to receive the documents by condoning the delay. In support of his argument that leave to receive documents after filing written statement cannot be granted at the mere asking and leave should be granted only if the defendant furnishes adequate reasons, relied on the judgment of this Court in Ravi Satish v. Edala Durga Prasad 2009 (3) ALT 236 . He thus submitted that no interference is called for with the order under revision and prayed that the C.R.P. be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. He thus submitted that no interference is called for with the order under revision and prayed that the C.R.P. be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. A duty is cast on the defendant to produce the documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him along with the written statement. However, Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, enables him to file the documents relied upon by him in support of his claim after filing written statement or at the hearing of the suit, however, receipt of such documents, can only be with the leave of the Court. Leave to receive the documents after filing written statement or at the hearing of the suit, cannot be granted by the Court mechanically at the mere asking of the defendant. The defendant while making such a request, is required to furnish adequate reasons as to why he could not file the documents, which he now wants to receive in evidence, along with the written statement. Unless the defendant shows adequate reasons as to why he could not file the documents along with the written statement, leave to receive the documents after filing written statement, cannot be granted. To the very same effect is the law laid down by this Court in the judgments relied upon by the petitioner as well as the respondent. 6. Having regard to the settled legal position, it may be noticed, whether the Court below was not justified in refusing receive the documents by condoning the delay. Receipt of documents, at the instance of the defendant after filing written statement, as noted above, being subject to leave of the Court, it may be seen whether the petitioner has given any adequate reasons, justifying his request to receive the documents after filing written statement. To consider this aspect, I have gone through the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present application. Though the petitioner has pleaded before this Court that due to administrative reasons, delay has occurred in filing the documents, but upon a perusal of affidavit filed in support of the application, it becomes clear that the petitioner has not taken any such plea before the Court. Though the petitioner has pleaded before this Court that due to administrative reasons, delay has occurred in filing the documents, but upon a perusal of affidavit filed in support of the application, it becomes clear that the petitioner has not taken any such plea before the Court. The petitioner has not furnished any reason, much less adequate reasons, as to why they could not file the documents along with the written statement, whether the documents were available with them as on the date of filing written statement and, if not, where they were lying all these days, when they found them and in whose possession they were. The petitioner except stating that they could not file the documents earlier and inasmuch as the respondent has based his claim by creating documents, it is just and necessary to receive the documents as otherwise, they will be put to great hardship, has not assigned any reason, much less justifiable reason as to why he could not file them along with the written statement. Merely because the petitioner is Government, it does not mean, it is entitled to seek receipt of documents after filing written statement without assigning any reasons, as to why they could not file the documents along with written statement. In the absence of any reason assigned by the petitioner as to why they could not file the documents along with the written statement, in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the Court below has rightly refused to grant leave to receive the documents by condoning the delay. 7. In the above view of the matter, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere therewith the order under revision in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. The C.R.P. is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.