Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) Heard Learned counsel for the parties Shri Brijesh Shukla and Shri Ashotosh for the opposite party.
(2.) This matter came up for admission on 13.7.2015, when a detailed order was passed by the Court, relevant portion whereof, is extracted below: This revision has been filed against the order dated 12.5.2015 by which the application filed by the defendant-revisionist under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) of Code of Civil Procedure to admit the documents as per list 40/c on record, has been rejected by observing that the applicant has not filed any document as required under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) of C.P.C. at the time of filing of written statement, however, after examination in chief of the plaintiff witnesses and their cross-examination was over, the documents have been filed with a view to delay the proceedings of the suit.
(3.) Sri Shukla submitted that the opposite party/plaintiff has not disclosed the facts in the plaint, therefore there was no occasion to file those documents which are mentioned in list 40/c. In his submissions, for the first time, he had disclosed the fact of demolition and reconstruction and handing over the building to the defendant in the year 1987, therefore there was no occasion to file those documents at the time of filing of written statement. The court below has rejected the application of the revisionist on the ground that these documents cannot be filed after the cross examination of the plaintiff-witnesses. The court has also observed that those documents were in possession of the defendants but were not filed at the time of filing of written statement and the reason for not filing the same earlier has not been disclosed.;