ORDER : (K. MANMADHA RAO, J.) As the issue involved in all the civil revision petitions is one and the same, these matters are taken up together for disposal by this Common Order. 2. The petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.114 of 2013, which was filed by the plaintiffs before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool (for short “the trial Court”) for declaration of title and for mandatory injunction for removal of the constructions made by defendant No.6 in the plaint schedule open site. The present impugned Interlocutory applications were filed before the trial Court viz., (i) I.A No.616 of 2024 in O.S.No.114 of 2013 was filed under Order VIII Rule 1(A) 3 and Section 151 of CPC seeking to receive documents by condoning the delay and mark the same on behalf of the petitioners/defendants; (ii) I.A.No.615 of 2024 in O.S.No.114 of 2013 was filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to recall DW.2 for the purpose of marking the documents shown in I.A.No.616 of 2024; and (iii) I.A No.614 of 2024 in O.S No.114 of 2023 was filed under Section 151 CPC to reopen the petitioners/defendants evidence to enable them to let in evidence on their behalf. All the Interlocutory Applications were dismissed by the trial Court vide separate orders dated 17.10.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petitions came to be filed. 3.. Heard Mr. U Venkata Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Varun Byreddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the trial Court erred in dismissing the Interlocutory Applications on the ground that there are no valid grounds to allow the applications. He submits that the trial Court also failed to consider that the petitioners/defendants relying on the documents which are sought to be produced before the Court and also failed to appreciate that the pahani copy issued by the Tahsildar, Kurnool Mandal, Revenue Office dated 25.6.2019 in original and adangal copy/pahani issued by the same Tahsildar, Kurnool dated 9.9.2024 are the important documents related to title of the petitioners/defendants herein. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the above referred documents were very important and vital for declaring the petitioners/ defendants as the real owners of the suit schedule property and that the view taken by the trial Court is clearly erroneous and therefore not sustainable. Therefore, the trial Court is not justified in dismissing the applications and hence prayed to allow the present civil revision petitions by setting aside the impugned orders passed by the trial Court. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the suit is of the year 2013 and the petitioners herein have come up with these applications in the year 2024. He submits that there existed a house with Municipal Door No.19-283-AS in the plaint schedule open site and stood mutated in deceased 1st plaintiff name. but, whereas the petitioners/defendants contended that it is a Thalimkhana/Open site and it belongs to them and the above said Door Number belongs to a third party by name B. Krishnaveni but not deceased 1st plaintiff. Simultaneously, petitioners/ defendants relied on Ex.B2 Gift Deed said to be pertaining to plaint schedule property. Pending the suit in the year 2019 defendants claim to have got the said Door No.19-283-A5 of first plaintiff, canceled by making application to Municipal Corporation unilaterally behind the back of plaintiffs. Now even as per the documents sought to be filed by the petitioners/defendants seem to have got changed even the nature of land in Sy.No.17/2 as "Bavi" when in fact it has always been farming land. He further submits that, In the first round of litigation between parties in O.S.No.634/2006, which was filed for bare injunction and on dismissal of the same, A.S.No.38/2013 was preferred and allowed by the Hon'ble VI Additional District Court, Kurnool on 16-10-2017. Neither in the said suit nor in the present suit petitioners/ defendants never whispered that the Sy.No.17/2 is "Bavi". He further submits that, in fact, in the lengthy cross- examination of PW.1 neither there is a suggestion that Sy.No.17/2 is "Bavi" nor in the evidence of defendants there is a whisper to that effect. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners herein filed the present petitions with untenable grounds. He further submits that, in fact, in the lengthy cross- examination of PW.1 neither there is a suggestion that Sy.No.17/2 is "Bavi" nor in the evidence of defendants there is a whisper to that effect. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners herein filed the present petitions with untenable grounds. He submits that the reasons offered by the petitioners for belated filing of the documents at the fag end of the case are not convincing and that the petitioners got fabricated the said documents which will in no way help their case. Hence, the respondents/ plaintiffs prayed to dismiss the petitions. 6. Learned counsel further submits that, in similar circumstances, this Court has passed a common order dated 23.09.2023 in CRP No,1380 and 1381 of 2016, dated 23.09.2023.Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to pass similar order in these writ petitions also. 7. On perusing the entire material available on record and on hearing the submissions of both the counsels, this Court observed that, the suit pertains to the year 2013 and as rightly pointed out by the respondents/plaintiffs that none of the written statements filed by the petitioners/defendants pleaded that Sy.No.17/2 is “Bavi” . Even in the cross examination of PW.1 the same was not suggested to PW.1 stating St No.17/2 is a “Bavi”.It is an admitted fact that no evidence can be permitted to let in when there is no pleading to that effect. When it is not the case of the petitioners/defendants that the land in St O.17/2 is a “Bavi” the petitioners cannot be permitted to file the documents which ultimately change the nature of the suit schedule property. Further no plausible reason or ground is made out by the petitions for non-filing of the said documents at the earliest point of time. 8. On hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, it is observed that the proposed documents are to be received for the purpose of marking the same for proper adjudication of the suit and that the proposed documents are relevant and useful in determining the issue and hence the documents are to be received for the purpose of marking the same. 9. 9. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh in a catena of decisions reported in (i) Joint Commissioner-cum-Chief Fire Officer Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh and others v. Ajay Singh , [Civil Revsiion Peititon No.59 of 2021 dt. 20.07.2022] , held that “No good cause for not placing the CD along with written statement, at the first instance, ever came to be placed on record, rather pleadings as set up in the written statement and application filed Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC are contradictory. (ii) Nerudu Srinivas Reddy and another v. Neerudu Sunanda alias Sunanda Reddy alias Sripathy Sunanda Reddy , [ 2016 (3) ALD 49 ] , wherein it was held that invoking of inherent power under Section 151 CPC in the facts of the present case is for brining of further evidence in the form of an Advocate Commissioners report by the petitioners. In that view of the matter, the procedure for adducing and recording of evidence as provided for under Order XVIII may be noticed. (iii) In K.K. Veluswamy v. N. Palaniswamy , [2011 Law Suit (SC) 271] , wherein it was held that the ode earlier had a specific provision in Order 18 Rule 17A for production of evidence not previously known or the evidence which could not be produced despite due diligence. (iv). In a case reported in Pallepati Narasaiah and others Vs. P. Satyanarayana and others , [ 2019 (6) ALT 360 (S.B.)] , wherein the High Court of Judicature, Hyderabad, held that : Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 8 Rule 1-A Filing of additional documents. It is incumbent on the part of a defendant. To produce documents along with his written statement . If he did not produce it along with the written statement, without leave of the Court, he cannot file it later Order 8 Rule 1-A (1 and 3) CPC} 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 Revision is allowed. After the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure by Act 22 of 2002 w.e.f. 01.07.2002, it is incumbent on the part of a defendant who bases his defence on document, or relies upon any document in his possession or power in support of his defence, to produce it along with his written statement, and also file a copy of it; and if he did not produce it along with the written statement, without the leave of the Court, he cannot file it later {Order VIII Rule 1A (1 & 3) CPC}. The reason for this rule is that both parties should go to trial knowing each others' documents and neither party can take the other by surprise at a later stage after his evidence is completed. (v). In another case reported in Voruganti Narayana Rao Vs. Bodla Rammurthy and others , [ 2011(6) ALT 299 (S.B.)] , wherein the High Copurt of Judicature at Hyderabad held that : Documents not produced with written statement – Allowing of, subsequently- court vested with discretion to allow such documents to be produced later, only if sufficient cause is assigned by defendant and not for mere asking – Suit on pronote filed by petitioner – Evidence on plaintiff’s side closed – D.3 filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination. Later, defendants filed application for receiving seven pronotes into evidence.” (vi). In another case reported in Ravi Satish v. Edala Durga Prasad and others , [ 2009 (3) ALT 236 (S.B.)] , wherein the High Court of Judicature, Hyderabad, held that : The question, which arises for consideration in all these five revisions is whether the Court below is required under Order VIII Rule 1- A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, to receive documents despite absence of cause being shown by the applicant. Under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC, a document, which ought to be produced before the Court by the defendant under Rule 1, but it is not so produced shall not, without leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. Sub-rule(3) was inserted by Act 22 of 2002 with effect from 01.07.2022. Sub-rule(3) of Rule 1-A of Order VIII permits the documents to be received only on leave being granted by the Court. Sub-rule(3) was inserted by Act 22 of 2002 with effect from 01.07.2022. Sub-rule(3) of Rule 1-A of Order VIII permits the documents to be received only on leave being granted by the Court. Grant of leave is not for the mere asking, nor is the Court a mere Post-Office to \receive documents even in the absence of any reasons being furnished for failure to file the said documents along with the written statement. Admittedly, in the case on hand, no reasons whatsoever have been furnished by the petitioner, let alone adequate cause been shown as to why the documents, which were the subject matter of the application, could not be filed earlier along with the written statement. Having chosen not to give any reasons, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the Court below should have received the documents, since the petitioner’s right could be adversely affected for failure on its part to receive the documents. While it is no doubt true that admissibility and proof of documents are matters which ought not to be gone into at the time of receipt of documents, the fact, however, remains that the leave sought for can only be granted on adequate reasons being furnished justifying failure on the part of the applicant in not filing the document along with the written statement earlier. The contention that no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the respondent/plaintiff has been rejected by the Court below on the ground that their right to file rejoinder based on the said document had been denied. The court below has not committed any jurisdictional error nor has its order resulted in such manifest injustice as to necessitate interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (vii). In a case of Pandit Nehru Bus Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District and others Vs. P.V. Surya Narayana , [ 2017 (4) ALT 582 (S.B.)] , wherein this Court held that : In the affidavit filed in support of the present I.A.No.447 of 2016 the defendants stated that at the material time of filing counter and chief examination affidavit, some of the important documents could not be filed and the same are very essential and crucial to prove the case of the defendants and the said documents could be recently traced out. While stating so, the defendants/petitioners herein prayed the Court below to condone the delay in receiving the said documents. Admittedly, in the present suit, recording of evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs came to an end. Except stating that at the time of filing counter and chief examination affidavits the documents could not be filed and they could be traced recently, no other reason is forthcoming nor did the petitioners state clearly the reasons for not filing the said documents along with the written statement. If the reason as stated in the present affidavit is treated as a reasonable one, the same can be a reason in each and every case. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said reason assigned by the petitioners herein, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be said to be a valid reason. The petitioners herein even did not state in the affidavit that despite their due diligence, the proposed documents could not be traced out at the relevant point of time. (viii) In another citation reported in Voruganti Narayana Rao Vs Bodla Rammurthy and others , [ 2011 (6) ALT 299 (S.B)] , wherein the High Court of judicature at Hyderabad held that : Rules 1-A and 1-A(3)of Order VIII C.P.C.,were substituted by Act 46 of 1999 with effect from 01.07.2002. The object with which those Rules were amended was to curb the phenomenal delays in the procedural aspects leading to procrastination of the proceedings before the civil Court. The Parliament has thought it fit to stipulate time limits for the parties to file their defence and produce the documents along with the defence so that the cases can be disposed of without avoidable delays. This being the avowed object with which the above noted provisions are amended, Rule 1-A(3) of Order VIII C.P.C., which on a literal interpretation appears to vest unlimited discretion with the Court, requires to be interpreted so as to advance the intendment of the legislation. The Court before which the defendant produced the said documents after filing of the written statement, therefore, needs to be circumspect in examining whether proper reasons are assigned by the defendant for not producing the documents along with the written statement. The Court before which the defendant produced the said documents after filing of the written statement, therefore, needs to be circumspect in examining whether proper reasons are assigned by the defendant for not producing the documents along with the written statement. Unless the reasons assigned by the defendant discloses 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 defendant to file such documents later. Undoubtedly, unduly liberal approach in this regard would frustrate the purpose for which the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are amended. This Court in Ravi Satish (cited supra) held that grant of leave by the Court is not for the mere asking nor is the Court a mere post-office to receive documents even in the absence of any reasons furnished for failure to file the said documents along with the written statement. 10. On perusing the entire material available on record and in the light of the judgments cited above, this Court observed that, the present case is also similarly situated petitioners. The suit is filed in the year 2013, thereafter, the matter was also heard the arguments of respondents/plaintiffs and when the matter was came up with the petitions without any basis. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on hearing the submissions of both the counsels, this Court observed that, the principles laid down in the judgments referred to above, are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present cases. It is also settled principle of law that unless the order impugned suffers from jurisdictional error or patent perversity, the power of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be pressed into service. Therefore, this Court has absolutely no scintilla of hesitation nor any shadow of doubt to hold that the orders under challenge do not warrant any interference by this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 12. In view of the foregoing reasons, all the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Further, since the suit pertains to the year 2013, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same, as expeditiously, as possible, preferably, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. Further, since the suit pertains to the year 2013, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same, as expeditiously, as possible, preferably, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.