N SUBHASH CHAND JAIN Vs. UNIPLY INDUSTRIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O.S.No.4043 of 2001 on the file of the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, is the revision petitioner. Though the suit is of the year 2001, the written statement of the defendant was filed only in March 2010 and immediately thereafter the defendant / revision petitioner filed I.A. No.6342 of 2010 under Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) C.P.C to receive 8 documents mentioned in the petition and that application was dismissed by the Court below and aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.

(2.) IT is seen from the orders passed by the Lower Court that the Lower Court has permitted the document No.1 namely the invoice Original dated 04.08.1999 and rejected the documents 2 to 4 on the ground that they are xerox copies and held that after due authentication those documents mentioned in Sl.No. 2 to 4 can be received and document Nos. 5 to 8 cannot be received, holding that document Nos. 5 to 8 came into existence after the filing of the suit.