ORDER : 1. This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order, dated 18.09.2019, in I.A.No.295 of 2019 in O.S.No.194 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni, filed under Order VIII Rule 1-A read with Section 151 CPC to receive the petition list mentioned documents shown below: Sl.No. Date Description of document Remarks Exhibit 1 30-5-2007 Regd. Partition deed bearing document no.2378/2007 in which B-schedule property bearing D.No.50-85-4/1 is in the name of defendant Notarized copy B-1 2 Property tax pass book with new asst. no.100003/60246 in the name of Defendant for the house constructed in Ex.B-1 Notarized copy B-2 3 15-4-2019 Market value certificate for the property in Ex.B-1 & 2 Certified copy B-3 4 01-7-1999 Regd. Sale deed bearing document No.2479/1999 for the house bearing D.No.55-7- 26 in the name of Defendant’s wife Notarized copy B-4 5 16-2-2019 Regd. Settlement Deed bearing document No.1266/19 for the house bearing D.No.55-7-26 in the name of Defendant Notarized copy B-5 6 Property tax pas book with asst. 44487 for the house bearing D.No.55-7-26 in the name of defendant’s wife for the house constructed in Ex.B3 Notarized copy B-6 7 15-4-2019 Market value certificate for the property in Ex.B-4 & 5 Certified copy B-7 8 30-1-2010 Regd. Partition deed bearing document No.658/2010 in which the B- Schedule property bearing D.No.50-90- 28 belongs to the defendant Notarized copy B-8 9 Property tax pass book with new asst. No.100003 for the above property in the name of the Defendant Notarized copy B-9 10 15-4-2019 Market value certificate for property in Ex.B-8 & B9 B-10 11 27-4-1995 Regd. Partition deed bearing document No.658/2010 in which the B- Schedule property bearing D.No.50-90- 28 belongs to the defendant Notarized copy B-8 9 Property tax pass book with new asst. No.100003 for the above property in the name of the Defendant Notarized copy B-9 10 15-4-2019 Market value certificate for property in Ex.B-8 & B9 B-10 11 27-4-1995 Regd. Sale deed bearing Document No.1636/1995 for the Plot No.27 in the name of the defendant Notarized copy B-11 12 15-4-2019 Market value certificate for property in Ex.B-11 Certified copy B-12 13 Pattadar pass book bearing No.C-574420 for an extent of Ac.0.31 ¼ cents in the name of the Defendant Notarized copy B-13 14 Title deed bearing No.C574420 for an extent of Ac.0.31 ¼ cents in the name of the Defendant Notarized copy B-14 15 15-4-2019 Market Value certificates (2) for the property in Ex.B-13 & 14 Certified copy B-15 16 I.D card of the Defendant’s son Appalaraju Notarized copy B-16 17 I.D card of the defendant’s son Krishna Notarized copy B-17 18 Andhra Bank’s pass book of the defendant bearing A/c No.103010011007072, Andhra Bank, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam showing bank transactions from September, 2011 to January, 2016. Notarized copy B-18 19 22-7-2015 Reply notice given by the defendant’s counsel to the plaintiff’s counsel Notarized copy B-19 20 Acknowledgment Notarized copy B-20 21 27-1-2015 Decree in O.S.194/2012 on the file of VII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam Certified copy B-21 2. Heard Sri Ganduri Nageswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/defendant and Sri T.N.M.Ranga Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff. 3. The revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff. The suit is filed against the petitioner for recovery of money based on a promissory note. The defendant took the defence denying borrowal of amount and execution of the promissory note and further contended that the defendant need not borrow any amount from any third party, much less, the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant proposed to file the above documents to prove the fact pleaded in the written statement that he did not need any amount as a loan. 4. Therefore, the defendant proposed to file the above documents to prove the fact pleaded in the written statement that he did not need any amount as a loan. 4. The petition was opposed by the plaintiff by filing a counter stating that the suit is filed for recovery of money based on suit promissory note, and therefore, the issue is whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding and is executed by the defendant in the manner alleged by the plaintiff and the incidental issue is whether the defendant received consideration amount under the pro-note and delivered the instrument to the plaintiff, but it is not required to file all these documents, since the defendant did not plead in the written statement about all of them and further that these documents are in no way connected to the present case. 5. After hearing both parties, the trial Court accepted the contention of the plaintiff and dismissed the petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the fact that the defendant did not require loan was specifically pleaded and therefore, to prove the same, it is required to lead evidence to discharge the burden on the defendant and further that there is no need to plead all the evidence in the written statement, but erroneously the trial court dismissed the petition contrary to the settled legal principles. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent reiterated the contentions in the counter and supported the reasons given by the trial Court. 8. A perusal of the written statement shows that the defendant took the defence as contended by him. Therefore, there is burden on him to establish the fact pleaded. Of course, he is supposed to file all the documentary evidence in support of his pleadings, along with the written statement, however, he failed to do so. But, Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC gives discretion to a Court to grant leave to file documents subsequently, however, no parameters have been prescribed as to how and when such discretion is to be exercised. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the following decisions in support of the contention that unless delay in filing the documents is pleaded and established, no leave can be granted to the defendant to file the documents for mere asking sake. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the following decisions in support of the contention that unless delay in filing the documents is pleaded and established, no leave can be granted to the defendant to file the documents for mere asking sake. (i) In Lakshmi v. Vitta Kristappa, 2020(2) ALT 364 , it was held at para No.15 as follows: “15. There is no dispute about the law laid down by the Apex Court in K.K. Velusamy v. Palanisamy [ (2011)11 SCC 275 ], that where the application is found to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the Court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and the Court is satisfied that non-production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the Court may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh evidence.” (ii) In Pallepati Narasaiah S/o late Narayana v. P. Satyanarayana S/o late Balaiah and others, 2019 (6) ALT 360 , it was held that only if party is prevented by circumstances beyond his control to file the documents along with the written statement, the Court may consider allowing the defendant to file documents subsequently. (iii) In U. Venkatramma v. V. Ravinder Reddy, 2019 (1) HLT 265, it was held at para 10 as follows: “….It was incumbent on the part of the petitioners to file documents on which they rely along with the Written Statement filed by them. Grant of leave under Order VIII Rule 1(A)(3) CPC is not automatic and a party, who is negligent in filing documents which are required to be filed along with the plaint/Written Statement, cannot seek such indulgence without showing sufficient cause.” (iv) In Sugandhi (dead) by legal representatives v. P. Raj Kumar represented by his power Agent Imam Oli, (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 706, it was held at para 9 as follows: “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. 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. In the light of the above decisions, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that all the documents purported to be filed by the revision petitioner were available with the defendant at the time when the written statement was filed and moreover, no reason is assigned as to why he could not file them along with the written statement though they were available, and therefore, permission could not be granted. 11. For better appreciation, the provision of Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC is excerpted hereunder: “1A. 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.” 12. (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.” 12. The wide discretion given to a Court under Order VIII Rule 1-A must be judiciously exercised, as no parameters are prescribed. Therefore, the Court has to independently examine the necessity of filing the documents depending on the facts and circumstances in each case, and thereby, examine whether leave can be granted or not. 13. At this juncture, it is beneficial to refer two decisions of this High Court in M.R.Anjaneyulu v. R. Subramanyam Achary, (2012) 5 ALD 243 , and Rajah R.V.G.K.Ranga Rao v. Nizams Sugars Limited, (2004) 1 ALD 387 . (i) In M.R.Anjaneyulu (5 supra), it was held at paragraphs nos.(6) and (7) as follows: “6. Under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’), a document, which ought to be produced in the Court by the defendant, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence. 7. Clause (3) of Order VIII Rule 1A CPC was incorporated by Act 22 of 2002 with a view to discourage the practice of the parties filing documents at a belated stage of the proceedings. The law is well settled that procedure is handmaid of justice. While procedural laws need to be adhered to in order to avoid long delays in disposal of the cases, at the same time, the Courts will have to make a delicate balance between strict adherence to these procedural laws and the substantial justice that needs to be ensured for the parties. In the anxiety to curb delays, stopping the parties from adducing relevant evidence would lead to failure of justice. However, fair amount of discretion is vested by Order VIII Rule 1A(3) CPC in the Courts to permit filing the documents. No hard and fast principles can be laid down for the Courts as to how this discretion has to be exercised. While exercising such discretion, the Courts will have to consider relevant aspects, such as, the conduct of the parties, the nature of the documents that are sought to be filed and whether by permitting filing such documents, the same will help the Court to adjudicate the suit in a more effective manner etc. While exercising such discretion, the Courts will have to consider relevant aspects, such as, the conduct of the parties, the nature of the documents that are sought to be filed and whether by permitting filing such documents, the same will help the Court to adjudicate the suit in a more effective manner etc. The Court should also consider the stage at which the documents are sought to be filed delay in filing the proposed documents is vague, one of those documents being a registered sale deed, it may certainly have a bearing on his defence in the suit Moreover, those documents were sought to be produced before the commencement of the cross-examination of the respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, the respondent will certainly have an opportunity of explaining the nature of those documents if they are put to him in the cross-examination. Having regard to these circumstances, the lower Court ought to have permitted the petitioner to produce the two documents in question.” (ii) In Rajah R.V.G.K.Ranga Rao (6 supra), it was held as follows: “5. ...... Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) of the Code specifies “documents which ought to be produced in the Court by the defendant under this rule but if not so produced shall not without the leave of the Court be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.” Act 22 of 2002 introduced the said provision by way of substitution. The importance of the adduction of documentary evidence and reception of documentary evidence in civil proceedings need not be overemphasized. It is true that in certain matters there will be deliberate negligence and lack of bona fides on the parties and at belated stage the documents would be produced before the Court. To have proper check and also safeguard no doubt the amending provisions had been introduced. It has to be noticed that these are all more procedural matters and on the ground of laches there cannot be shutting of evidence, provided the Court is satisfied that there is some reason for non-production of the documents as specified and contemplated by the provisions of the Code. It has to be noticed that these are all more procedural matters and on the ground of laches there cannot be shutting of evidence, provided the Court is satisfied that there is some reason for non-production of the documents as specified and contemplated by the provisions of the Code. If reasons are explained normally the Court may have to lean in favour of receiving the documents since it is the fundamental principle that the parties should be permitted to let in all possible evidence which are relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the matters in controversy before the Court. Throwing the evidence on a technical ground and preventing a party producing the evidence, unless it is a deliberate attempt to delay the matters, normally cannot be permitted. It is a case where the certified copies of judgment and decree and the relevant C-Books had been produced. The learned Judge on the ground that a liberal view cannot be taken to grant leave, had refused the leave. This approach of the learned Judge, in my considered opinion, especially in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, is totally erroneous and unsustainable. It is also pertinent to note that the Courts are expected to be more careful and cautious in relation to reception of documents and instead of driving the parties to approach the revisional Court it is always better to grant leave and receive the documents permitting the parties to adduce necessary evidence and to expedite the matters and dispose of the main proceedings. By making such orders it is needless to observe that the proceedings will be further delayed. Viewed from any angle, the orders impugned in these revisions cannot be sustained and they are hereby set aside.” 14. In the present case, the documents are very much related to the defence taken about the no necessity of the defendant to take loan. It is one fact to be established by the defendant by leading evidence as already pleaded. Whether such proof is enough to dispel the case of the plaintiff or not is not under consideration now at this juncture. Of course, the petitioner has not stated any reason as to why these documents were not filed along with the written statement. It is one fact to be established by the defendant by leading evidence as already pleaded. Whether such proof is enough to dispel the case of the plaintiff or not is not under consideration now at this juncture. Of course, the petitioner has not stated any reason as to why these documents were not filed along with the written statement. Since Order VIII Rule 1-A does not specify that the petitioner shall explain the delay; the same alone cannot be a ground to reject the petition without considering the necessity of the documentary evidence for proper and complete adjudication of the dispute. Even the decision of the Supreme Court relied on by the respondent in case of Sungandhi (supra), it is categorically held that the procedural aspects should not come in the way of doing substantial justice. The same view is also adopted by this High Court in the cases of M.R.Anjaneyulu (5 supra) and Rajah R.V.G.K.Ranga Rao (6 supra). Therefore, keeping in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that it is necessary to grant leave to the revision petitioner to file the documents in evidence. If the documents are not allowed to be filed, the matter cannot be completely adjudicated on merits and on the other hand, if the documents are allowed to be filed, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff to establish the case pleaded. However, since there are unexplained laches on the part of the petitioner to file these documents at the earliest possible time, some terms may be imposed while allowing the petition. As such, the trial Court ought to have allowed the petition by imposing some terms on the petitioner. 15. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 18.09.2019, passed in I.A.No.295 of 2019 in O.S.No.194 of 2015 and the said petition is allowed subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay the respondent Rs.3,000/- on or before 31.01.2023, failing which the petition shall automatically stand dismissed without reference to this Court for any further orders. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand closed.