ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the defendants in the suit assailing the order dated 14.02.2019 of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna District in I.A.No.67 of 2019 in O.S.No.396 of 2006. By the impugned order, the application seeking leave of the Court for production of documents by the defendants was dismissed by the learned trial Court. 2. Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. 3. Sri Ch.B.R.P.Sekhar, the learned counsel for revision petitioners and Ms. Pranathi, learned counsel representing Sri G.Mallikarjuna Rao, the learned counsel for respondent submitted their arguments. 4. On considering the material on record and the submissions on both sides, the point that falls for consideration is: “Whether the impugned order occasioned injustice requiring interference?” POINT: 5. O.S.No.396 of 2006 is a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants and their men from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties and for costs and such other reliefs. Item No.1 is an extent of Ac.1.41 cents in R.S.No.128/1. Item No.2 is an extent of Ac.2.83 cents in R.S.No.128/2. Both these parcels of land situate in Bommuluru Village of Bapulapadu Mandal of Krishna District. The suit is laid on the premise that both the items of properties originally belonged to Smt. Garapati Atchayamma as she acquired them under a registered sale deed dated 10.05.1949. She owned and enjoyed those properties. By a Will dated 20.01.1991 she bequeathed them to her granddaughter, who is the plaintiff in the suit. That testator died on 16.03.1991. The Will came into effect and since then the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of these properties. Revenue authorities verified and granted pattadar and title deed passbooks to plaintiff. Mandal Surveyor visited the properties and prepared a plan dated 24.11.2006 and recognized the possession of the plaintiff. 6. In the plaint it is further stated that defendants own and possess the land in R.S.No.127. A part of that land is western boundary for item No.2 of the plaint schedule properties. The defendants have no rights or claims over the plaint schedule properties. For the plaint schedule properties on western side and northern side there is fencing. 6. In the plaint it is further stated that defendants own and possess the land in R.S.No.127. A part of that land is western boundary for item No.2 of the plaint schedule properties. The defendants have no rights or claims over the plaint schedule properties. For the plaint schedule properties on western side and northern side there is fencing. Since the defendants have been making forcible attempts to create a passage across item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties and since they did not relent despite advises, it is to prevent them from interfering into these properties the suit is laid. 7. Resisting the suit, 1st defendant filed a written statement stating that the title and possession claimed in the plaint is denied as false. It is specifically pleaded in this written statement that item No.2 of the plaint schedule is fictitious and is not in existence. At para No.14 of the written statement all the documents that are referred in the plaint are questioned stating that they are all created and they are fictitious documents. 1st defendant admits of owning and possessing of Ac.3.22 cents of land in R.S.No.127. It is stated that Ac.0.89 cents of land in R.S.No.128/2 is vagu land. The predecessors of defendants and thereafter the defendants have been entering into their own land in R.S.No.127 through that vagu land. There is no other access for their land. It is also pleaded that husband of Garapati Atchayamma is Sri Garapati Siva Rama Krishnaiah. When he and one Mr. G.Sambasiva Rao made attempts to occupy the vagu land, defendant No.1 herein along with his father objected their illegal acts but they did not stop their illegal acts of occupying the vagu land. In those circumstances, one of the neighbouring landlords Smt. Swarnalatha filed O.S.No.122 of 2001 before learned Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid and obtained a temporary injunction preventing the illegal occupation of vagu land. The defendants therein employed several threats to make the plaintiff to withdraw that suit. Since that suit was not withdrawn, they wanted to wreak vengeance against these defendants. On 05.12.2006 the above referred Siva Rama Krishnaiah and Sambasiva Rao occupied a part of vagu land and started erecting barbed iron fencing. At para No.13 it is specifically pleaded that the revenue records in respect of R.S.No.128 including the FMB would show the falsity of the documents filed by the plaintiff. On 05.12.2006 the above referred Siva Rama Krishnaiah and Sambasiva Rao occupied a part of vagu land and started erecting barbed iron fencing. At para No.13 it is specifically pleaded that the revenue records in respect of R.S.No.128 including the FMB would show the falsity of the documents filed by the plaintiff. Defendants sought for dismissal of the suit. 8. Issues in the suit were settled, trial progressed and plaintiff completed her evidence. When the matter was set for defendants’ side evidence, defendants came up with I.A.No.67 of 2019 which is a petition under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) C.P.C. They wanted to produce the following documents: 1. CC of resettlement register/fair adangal for RS No.127 and 128 of Bommuluru Village. 2. CC of No.3 adangal for RS No.127 and 128 of Bommuluru Village for fasali 1416 (year 2006). 3. CC of No.3 adangal for RS No.127 and 128 of Bommuluru Village for fasali 1417 (year 2007). 4. CC of No.3 adangal for RS No.127 and 128 of Bommuluru Village for fasali 1418 (year 2008). 5. CC of prohibitory list issued under Sec.22-A of Registration Act in respect of land covered by RS No.128/2 of Bommuluru Village. 9. In the sworn affidavit filed in support of that petition the 1st defendant stated that these documents are relevant for just and proper adjudication of the case. The certified copy of prohibitory list is obtained recently and the other documents were given to advocate but he misplaced in his office. It is for these reasons these documents could not be filed earlier. With such facts narrated they sought the leave of the Court. Plaintiff in her counter denied those allegations and stated that document No.1 is incomplete document and is not legible for reading and cannot be appreciated in evidence and therefore, that could not be received. That there is no valid reason pleaded for not filing documents earlier. That there are no bona fides. On those grounds, plaintiff sought for dismissal of that petition. 10. On considering the rival contentions, the learned trial Court by the impugned order dismissed the petition declining to grant leave by observing that there is long delay and the extent of delay is not mentioned in the petition and the cause of delay is not explained properly. On those grounds, plaintiff sought for dismissal of that petition. 10. On considering the rival contentions, the learned trial Court by the impugned order dismissed the petition declining to grant leave by observing that there is long delay and the extent of delay is not mentioned in the petition and the cause of delay is not explained properly. It also observed that one of the documents is incomplete and illegible and there was no reference of these documents in the written statement. 11. Assailing the above order, the learned counsel for revision petitioners contended that the impugned order is perverse and resulted in manifest injustice. That an application seeking leave of the Court under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) C.P.C. was considered as though it was an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. That the proposed documents are public documents and are not in custody of the revision petitioners and hence omission in the written statement about these documents cannot be a reason to refuse to grant leave. That the proposed documents are relevant for proper adjudication of the lis between the parties. That Order VIII Rule 1A(3) C.P.C. does not contemplate explanation of delay in filing the petition to receive documents. On these grounds learned counsel urges the Court to set aside the impugned order of the learned trial Court. 12. As against it, the learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff argued in support of the order impugned and stated that documents cannot be received for mere asking. There was utter failure in showing the reason for non-production of the documents with the written statement or at the time of settlement of issues or at the time of commencement of evidence on plaintiff’s side or during its continuance. Documents cannot be filed at belated stage depriving the opposite party from filing a rejoinder to written statement, from leading evidence showing facts that stand contrary to what is mentioned in the proposed documents. On these grounds the learned counsel urged to uphold the order of the learned trial Court. 13. After an earnest consideration of material on record and the arguments advanced on both sides, this Court has to state the following aspects: The purpose of trial of a dispute by a Court is to search and discover truth. The truth is to be discovered by following the procedure sanctioned by law. 13. After an earnest consideration of material on record and the arguments advanced on both sides, this Court has to state the following aspects: The purpose of trial of a dispute by a Court is to search and discover truth. The truth is to be discovered by following the procedure sanctioned by law. Every trial in a Court shall be fair and in accordance with law. Hearing both sides is a fundamental facet of fairness in trial. Very civilized and meticulous procedure granted by Code of Civil Procedure is to maintain this fairness to both sides to the case. Pre-trial process therefore contemplates pleadings to be exchanged and presented before the Court along with list of witnesses and list of documents by which the pleadings are proposed to be proved before the Court. For plaintiff Order VII Rule 14 and correspondingly for defendant Order VIII Rule 1A of Code of Civil Procedure provide directions about respective documents to be filed by both sides. For a further discovery of documents Order XI Rules 12 to 21 C.P.C. provides elaborate actions on both sides. To minimize the task of proof of documents Order XII Rules 2, 2A, 3A and 8 C.P.C. provided the procedure. Then there is Order XIII C.P.C. titled as ‘Production, Impounding and Return of documents’. Rule 1 of it strictly commands the parties and their pleaders to submit the original documents before the Court is going to apply its mind to settle the issues in the suit. For settlement of issues by Court Order XIV Rules 3(C) and 4 C.P.C. directs the Court to consider the contents of documents filed already and permits the Court to direct parties to produce relevant documents for its consideration for framing appropriate issues that have to be tried in the suit. Then Order XVI Rules 1 and 6 provides opportunity to parties to summon for documents that are not in their own custody. Rule (1) therein speaks of a period within 15 days after framing of issues to seek summons for documents. It is only thereafter the examination of witnesses and proof by documents commence as provided in Order XVIII C.P.C. 14. Both parties in O.S.No.396 of 2006 assisted by their able and learned Advocates completed the pre-trial process for documents adverted to above. Evidence on plaintiff’s side was also completed. It is only thereafter the examination of witnesses and proof by documents commence as provided in Order XVIII C.P.C. 14. Both parties in O.S.No.396 of 2006 assisted by their able and learned Advocates completed the pre-trial process for documents adverted to above. Evidence on plaintiff’s side was also completed. When it was for evidence on defendants’ side, the application for receiving documents filed under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) C.P.C. by defendants was dismissed by the learned trial Court. Therefore this revision. In view of the nature of contentions raised, it is needed to refer the said provision. Order VIII Rule 1-A -Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him. 1. Where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set-off or counter-claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement. 2. Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. 3. A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. 4. Nothing in this rule shall apply to documents - (a) produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, or (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. 15. The letter and spirit of the provision and its theme is that the defendants when rest their defence on documents they shall enlist and produce the documents in Court along with written statement and deliver copies of those documents. For documents in possession of defendants the above provision is mandated. If documents are not in possession, the written statement shall mention as to in whose possession or power they are. All the above stated principles and their compliance would enable the plaintiff to meet the case and proof proposed by defendants. Fair procedure is the heart of the matter. 16. If documents are not in possession, the written statement shall mention as to in whose possession or power they are. All the above stated principles and their compliance would enable the plaintiff to meet the case and proof proposed by defendants. Fair procedure is the heart of the matter. 16. In the case at hand, the defendants/revision petitioners assert their defence in written statement that vagu land in an extent of Ac.0.89 Cents situate in Survey No.128/2 and showing that as part of plaint schedule the plaintiff occupied it. At Para No.13 of written statement the defendants asserted this version referring to revenue records and FMB. 17. Thus the revision petitioners have knowledge of existence of documents. However, they did not choose to file them along with their written statement in the year 2007 or thereafter till the time of filing their application in the year 2019 before the trial Court. It is stated that the documents (except the copy of prohibitory list) were given to the Advocate but he misplaced them in his office and hence could not be filed earlier. This is a broad and vague contention as it failed to specify whether those documents were given to the Advocate at the time of filing written statement in the year 2007 or at any other time in the next 12 years before filing I.A.No.67 of 2019. The name of the Advocate is not mentioned. The date of tracing of these documents is not mentioned. The supporting affidavit of the said Advocate speaking about misplacement of these documents is not filed. Before a Court accepts the reason for non-filing of documents, the party to the case must place before the Court the necessary details over which that party alone holds knowledge. That is completely lacking in this case. The other contention raised is that these proposed documents are relevant for just decision in the suit. Be it noted, the suit is not for declaration of title over immovable property. It is only about permanent injunction. Possession of property is the main issue before the trial Court. The revision petitioners’ defence is about their right of access to their lands via the plaint schedule land. Whether a part of the plaint schedule land is vagu land or only a private land has nothing to do with the right of way claimed by revision petitioners. Possession of property is the main issue before the trial Court. The revision petitioners’ defence is about their right of access to their lands via the plaint schedule land. Whether a part of the plaint schedule land is vagu land or only a private land has nothing to do with the right of way claimed by revision petitioners. The proposed documents do not show any such right of way for anyone. Moreover, no issue was framed in the suit as to whether the vagu land is part of the plaint schedule land or not. Thus the core dispute between parties is not dependent on the proposed documents. For revision petitioners, it is contended that the proposed documents are public documents and therefore they need not be produced with written statement and there is no need to mention as to with whom those documents are there. Be it noted, Order VIII Rule 1A(3) C.P.C. has not made any such distinction between public documents and private documents. 18. In Digumarthi Suresh Babu v. B.A.S. Granites, 2023 SCC Online AP 1020 (cited by learned counsel for respondent), a learned Judge of this Court traced a long line of precedent of this Court and other Courts to the effect that an application for seeking leave of the Court the facts must show proper explanation indicating the relevance of the documents to determine the issues in the suit, must assign proper reason for non-production of documents at the earlier stages of the suit, may have to show the cause of failure is out of circumstances beyond the control of the party, avoid taking the other party by surprise after the conclusion of plaintiff’s side evidence, must indicate their failure was despite due diligence. It is further held that phenomenal delays in trial is required to be curbed and leave cannot be granted for mere asking. This ruling squarely applies to the case at hand. 19. Learned counsel for revision petitioners cited Sugandhi v. P.Rajkumar, LAWS(SC) 2020 (10) 52, wherein Paragraph Nos.8, 9 and 10 are relevant and thus extracted here: “(8) Sub-rule (3), as quoted above, provides a second opportunity to the defendant to produce the documents which ought to have been produced in the court along with the written statement, with the leave of the court. The discretion conferred upon the court to grant such leave is to be exercised judiciously. The discretion conferred upon the court to grant such leave is to be exercised judiciously. While there is no straight jacket formula, this leave can be granted by the court on a good cause being shown by the defendant. (9) It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the documents under sub-rule (3). (10) Coming to the present case, the defendants have filed an application assigning cogent reasons for not producing the documents along with the written statement. They have stated that these documents were missing and were only traced at a later stage. It cannot be disputed that these documents are necessary for arriving at a just decision in the suit. We are of the view that the courts below ought to have granted leave to produce these documents.” 20. Thus even this ruling mandates that a good cause shall be shown by the defendant and the Court should exercise discretion judiciously. On these parameters the impugned order when evaluated, this Court does not find any good reason to interfere with it. There is no patent perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order requiring interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, point is answered against the revision petitioners. 21. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.