ORDER : 1. Petitioner/plaintiff filed this Civil Revision Petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Jangoan in I.A. No. 80 of 2020 in O.S. No. 33 of 2014, dated 19.02.2020. 2. Heard Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and R.K. Chitta, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 3. During the pendency of the revision petition respondent No. 1 died and learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that except petitioner and respondent No. 2 there are no other legal heirs. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: 4.1 Revision petitioner herein is plaintiff and respondents are defendants in suit O.S. No. 33 of 2014. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the Suit before the Court below. 4.2 Plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 33 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, Warangal District seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property on 01.05.2014, stating that the said property is joint family property and he is entitled share on par with defendants. Defendants have filed written statement on 22.12.2014 denying the averments made in the plaint inter alia contending that the plaintiff is not a joint family member of the defendants and he went as adopted son of Kanugu Yadagiri Goud when he is below one year of age and at the time of adoption, a ceremony was celebrated at house of his adopted father situated at Kolanupaka village under the persuasion of Bhadraiah priest. They further stated that plaintiff was brought up under the nourishment of Kanugu Yadagiri Goud and his study certificates establish the said facts. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any rights over the suit scheduled property. 4.3 In the above said suit, plaintiff has filed application I.A. No. 80 of 2020, seeking permission to receive the Original DVD and Original Bill dated 17.07.2006 and to mark the above said documents on his behalf. The Court below dismissed the said application by its order dated 19.02.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the present revision petition. 5. The Court below dismissed the said application by its order dated 19.02.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the present revision petition. 5. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff contended that to prove and establish the claim of the plaintiff that he is the family member of defendants and his natural father performed his marriage, the documents filed along with application are very much required and by virtue of receiving the said documents, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants and the court below without properly considering the application and provisions of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, erroneously dismissed the application. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for defendant No. 2 contended that the petitioner filed application in I.A. No. 80 of 2020 to receive the documents i.e. DVD and original bill, after completion of cross examination by the defendants, to fill up the lacunas, without giving any reasons in support of the same. 6.1 He further contended that the plaintiff has not filed application seeking leave to file the documents as required under Order VII Rule 14 Sub Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) and has not made any averments about performing of his marriage by his natural father and about existing of DVD and original bill in the suit or in his chief affidavit and the plaintiff has filed the said application only to drag on the proceedings and the Court below has rightly dismissed the application and there is no illegality and irregularity in the impugned order. 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the plaintiff filed suit in O.S. No. 33 of 2014, seeking partition of Suit Scheduled property and allotment of separate possession on 01.05.2014 and defendants have filed written statement on 22.12.2014 denying the averments made in the plaint that the plaintiff is not the joint family member of the defendants and also further pleaded that the plaintiff went as adopted son of Kanugu Yadagiri Goud. 8. The plaintiff after cross examination by the defendants, filed an application in I.A. No. 80 of 2020 seeking permission to receive the Original DVD and Original Bill dated 17.07.2006 and mark the said documents on his behalf. 8. The plaintiff after cross examination by the defendants, filed an application in I.A. No. 80 of 2020 seeking permission to receive the Original DVD and Original Bill dated 17.07.2006 and mark the said documents on his behalf. The plaintiff has not sought leave to file the said documents nor assigned any reasons in support of the application as to why the said documents were not filed along with the suit or with his chief affidavit. Admittedly, the documents sought to be marked, pertains to the year 2006 which is much prior to institution of the suit O.S. NO. 33 of 2014. 9. It is relevant to extract Order 7 Rule 14 Sub Rule (3) of CPC which reads as follows: “Order 7 rule 14 clause (3) of CPC provides that document which ought to have been produced in the court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented but is not presented then it shall not without the leave of the court, be received in evidence during the hearing of the suit.” 10. As per the above said provisions, the plaintiff is not entitled to file application straight away to receive the documents without seeking leave as required under Sub Rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order VII of CPC. 11. In Balasani Lingam vs. Adepu Bhadrachalam (C.R.P. Nos. 3628 of 2023 and batch dated 21.02.2024) this court held that the parties ought to have filed all the relevant documents along with the plaint. However Order VII Rule14(3) of CPC has given discretion to the Court to allow the filing of documents at a later stage, provided convincing reasons are given and the documents are relevant to the issues in the suit. The court further noted that such discretion should be exercised judiciously, considering the circumstances and material on record. 12. In The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. P.V. Surya Narayana, 2017 (4) ALD 733 this Court while relying upon the Judgments in Ravi Satish vs. Edala Durga Prasad, 2009 (3) ALT 236 and Voruganti Narayana Rao vs. Bodla Rammurthy and Others, 2011 (6) ALT 299 held that unless the reasons assigned by the party disclose sufficient cause for his failure to produce the documents within the time stipulated in Rule 1-A of Order VIII C.P.C. the Court shall not permit the party later. 13. 13. For the foregoing reasons as well as plethora of Judgments mentioned ‘supra’ this Court do not find any irregularity or illegality or jurisdictional error to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Court below in I.A. No. 80 of 2020 in O.S. No. 33 of 2014, dated 19.02.2020 to exercise the powers conferred under the Article 227 of Constitution of India. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.