The petitioner in these two revisions is the plaintiff in O.S.No.9 of 2009 on the file of the learned XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The said suit was filed for a declaration and injunction in relation to the suit schedule property. While so, the 1st defendant, the 1st respondent herein, filed I.A.Nos.234 of 2016 and 264 of 2016 therein under Order 8 Rule 1-A CPC to receive certain documents which were not filed along with the written statement. By way of I.A.No.234 of 2016, he wanted certain copies of documents received by him from the Court of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar, relating to Crime No.876 of 2010, to be received by the trial Court, while under I.A.No.264 of 2016, he wanted to place on record an encumbrance certificate. Both the I.As. were contested by the petitioner-plaintiff. In his counter filed to the I.As., he specifically stated that the documents which were sought to be filed were photocopies and were inadmissible and that they had not been accepted by the criminal Court. He further stated that leave could not be granted by the trial Court to receive these documents belatedly. In his counter to I.A.No.264 of 2010 in O.S.No.9 of 2009, he further stated that there was no mention of the encumbrance certificate in the written statement and that the said document could not be received as a matter of course after amendment of the CPC.
