IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUDIVADA Present: Sri I.SRINIVASA MURTHY, Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada. Friday, this the 21st day of August, 2020. IA.No. 95/2020 in OS.61/2016 Between 1. Doddi Buddeswara Rao, S/o. ( late) D.Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, Aged 63 years, business, R/o.Dr.No.13/420, behind ZP.Guest House, Patimeeda, Gudivada. 2. Doddi Jagan Mohan Rao, S/o. ( late) D.Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged 46 years, business, R/o.Dr.No.13/344-A, Behind AP Guest House, Patimeeda, Gudivada, Gudivada Mandal. 3. Doddi Chinna Rao, S/o. ( late) D.Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged 63 years, business, R/o.Dr.No.13/420, behind A.P.Guest House, Patimeeda, Gudivada, Gudivada Mandal, Krishna District. 4. Doddi Pydeswara Rao, S/o. ( late) D.Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged 63 years, business, R/o.Dr.No.13/420, behind A.P.Guest House, Patimeeda, Gudivada, Gudivada Mandal, Krishna District. 5. Doddi Karunakara Rao, S/o.( late) D.Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, Dr.No.11/175, Parasurama street, Gudivada, Gudivada Mandal, Krishna …Petitioner/plaintiff. District. And Nerella Ramana, W/o.N.Siva Prasad, Hindu, aged 45 years, Hotel business, proprietor, Arya Bhavan, 1st floor, Dr.No.15/66, Opposite to Gudivada Municipality, Gudivada, Krishna …..Respondent/ District Defendant. This petition has come up on 06.08.2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Appaiah, advocate for petitioners and of Sri J.B.K.Sastry, advocate for respondent and upon perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has delivered the following: 2 ORDER This petition is filed by the plaintiffs in the suit under Or.7Rule 14(1) CPC to grant leave to the petitioner to file 37 documents which are the rent agreement, plaint copy in OS.98/2015 filed by the respondent/defendant and other correspondence between the parties. 2. The case of the petitioners/plaintiffs is that they filed the suit for eviction of the respondent from the plaint schedule property and for payment of arrears of rent of Rs.1,08,000/- and also for damages, and that along with the suit they filed some documents, but the documents now sought to be produced were not traced out at the time of filing of the suit and now on the advice of their counsel, they want to file the proposed documents, which are postal acknowledgement of the respondent, rent agreement dt.13.07.2012, plaint copy in OS.98/2015 and the covering letters towards correspondence between the parties. 3. Respondent/defendant filed counter opposing the petition and, inter alia, alleging that no party should be permitted to travel beyond his pleadings and all necessary material facts should be pleaded in the pleadings, but in the present petition, petitioners want to introduce new documents which are not pleaded in the plaint. It is further alleged that no sufficient cause was shown by the petitioners/plaintiffs for non filing of documents along with the plaint and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard both sides. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether the documents sought to be produced by the petitioners/plaintiffs can be received as prayed for? POINT: 3 6. As seen from the record, the suit is now coming up for trial and the present petition is filed along with the chief examination affidavit of the 1st plaintiff. In the present petition, petitioners want to produce served postal acknowledgement of the respondent/defendant, rent agreement dt.13.07.2012, plaint copy in OS.98/2015 on the file of this court and correspondence between the parties from 18.06.2015 to 15.02.2018. 7. The main case of the respondent is that there is no pleading with regard to the proposed documents in the entire plaint and by virtue of the proposed documents, petitioners want to introduce a new case which cannot be permitted and that there are no valid reasons given by the petitioners for not producing the proposed document along with the plaint. In this connection, it is necessary to look into the plaint pleadings. In para No.4 of the plaint there is a clear pleading that on 13.07.2012, respondent/defendant purchased Rs.100/- Non-judicial bond paper, got typed the terms and conditions of the understanding in telugu language which is a lease agreement for 11 months. Now the petitioners want to produce the said lease agreement. Whether the said lease agreement can be received in evidence or not is a question to be decided at the relevant point of time. But, there is a clear pleading in the plaint regarding the said lease agreement. In para No.6, it is clearly pleaded by plaintiffs that OS.98/2015 is field by the respondent to drag on the matter for years together. Thus, there is a clear pleading regarding filing of OS.98/2015 by the respondent/defendant. Now the petitioners want to produce a copy of the plaint in the said suit. 8. In para No.7 of the plaint, it is pleaded by the plaintiffs that defendant was sending the rents by way of DD to 1st and 2nd plaintiffs with covering letters and immediately after receiving the rents, 1st and 4 2nd plaintiffs sent registered notices to the respondent. Now the other documents sought to be produced by the petitioners are the correspondence between the parties along with covering letters. Thus, there are clear pleadings in the plaint regarding the proposed documents. It need not be necessary that each and every document should be specifically pleaded in the plaint so as to enable the plaintiffs to produce the documents. There is clear mention regarding the covering letters and correspondence between the parties in the plaint and now the petitioners want to produce the said correspondence before the court. 9. The explanation given by the petitioners is that the proposed documents were not traced out at the time of filing of the suit and, therefore, they could not be filed along with the plaint, and now as per the legal advice they have been filing the said documents. Therefore, there is no justification in the contention of the respondent that no explanation was given by the petitioners for not producing the proposed documents along with the suit. Moreover, the suit is at the commencement of trial. Since there are pleadings in the plaint regarding the proposed documents and since the suit is now at the stage of trial, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the proposed documents are received subject to proof and relevancy. Hence, the petition can be allowed as prayed for. Point is answered accordingly. 5 10. In the result, the petition is allowed. No costs. Dictated to Stenographer (Gr.III), transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me on this 21st day of August, 2020. Sd/-I.Srinivasa Murthy, Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada. Appendix of Evidence NIL Sd/-I.Srinivasa Murthy PSCJ/GDV..