Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Panthula Vijaya Lakshmi vs Pagidipala Yellamma Kalakati Yellamma on 24 January, 2024
Author: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1205 OF 2023
ORDER :
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 10.02.2023 passed in I.A.No.22 of 2023 in O.S.No.41 of 2014 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet, whereby petition filed to receive the documents for marking as exhibits on behalf of the petitioner/defendant was dismissed by the Court below.
2. O.S. No. 41 of 2014 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet was filed seeking permanent injunction. Pending the suit, the present I.A. came to be filed to receive certain documents pertaining to the year 2014 on behalf of the defendant for the purpose of marking as Exs. B1 to B4. According to the petitioner/defendant, the said documents were received by her at a belated stage due to which, the petitioner/defendant could not file at the time of filing of written statement and the said documents are utmost important and necessary to prove the case. Hence it is necessary to mark the said documents in the suit. It is further stated by the 2 petitioner/defendant that the additional documents were filed by her in C.M.A.No.1 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Kadapa at Rajampet wherein directions were given to file the said documents during the course of trial. In view of the said reasons, the present I.A. has been filed on the ground that if the documents have not been marked, it would be a serious prejudice and cause irreparable loss to the petitioner/ defendant.
3. On the other hand, a counter came to be filed stating that in spite of having the documents in the custody of the petitioner at the time of filing of written statement, she failed to file the same. In fact, the petitioner cross examined the respondent pertaining to the documents filed by the petitioner. Certified copy of decree in O.S.No.69 of 2014 is not related to the present suit and further the aforesaid documents have not been obtained from the competent authority and the same cannot be looked into.
4. Heard both sides.
3
5. The suit is filed seeking permanent injunction. The documents now sought to be received, were not filed along with written statement. Therefore, the I.A. has been filed in the trial Court seeking leave of the Court for receiving the said documents on behalf of the petitioner/defendant. The suit is of the year 2014. There are absolutely no reasons given by the petitioner as to why so much delay had taken place. Further, it is also not stated as to in what way said documents were relevant to the present suit.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Levaku Pedda Reddamma & Ors Vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma & Anr1 wherein, paragraph Nos.1 and 2 it is held as follows:
"The defendant Nos.2 to 5 are in appeal aggrieved against the order passed by the High Court affirming the order passed by the trial Court refusing to permit the appellant to produce additional documents in terms of order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
We find that the trial Court as well as the High Court have gravely erred in law in not permitting the defendants to produce documents, the relevance of which can be examined by the trial Court on the basis 1 2022 Live law (SC) 533 4 of the evidence to be led, but to deprive a party to the suit not to file documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid judgment, merely because there is delay, the petitioner would not be deprived of, from producing the documents before the Court.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents relied on the judgment in the case of U. Venkatramma Vs. V.Ravinder Reddy2 wherein, it was held as under:
"In the above matter, it was observed that a party who is negligent in filing the documents which are required to be filed with the plaint/written statement, cannot seek such indulgence without showing sufficient cause. Accordingly, the dismissal of the trial Court was confirmed in the above revision."
8. The party seeking indulgence of the Court to receive documents which are not required to be filed along with the respective pleading viz. plaint/written statement, has to show sufficient cause for not filing the documents at the earliest point of time. It is essential for the petitioner herein to show as to how the 2 2019 (5) ALD 210 5 documents are relevant to the present suit. In the absence of the same, the alien documents cannot be produced before the Court.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied upon the written statement and submitted an explanation to the extent that the documents are relevant to the present case. However, it is essential for the petitioner herein to file I.A. incorporating all particulars as to why the documents are relevant to the pending suit and the reasons for the delay in filing the said documents.
10. In view of the said reasons, the impugned order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge at Rajampet is set-aside. The petitioner herein is at liberty to file a fresh I.A. before the trial Court explaining the reasons for the delay and relevancy of the documents to be submitted, within a period two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. On such filing, the learned Junior Civil Judge is directed to dispose of the said I.A. within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter. 6
11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this C.R.P shall stand closed.
____________________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.
24.01.2024 PKR/DRK 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 218 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1205 OF 2023 24.01.2024 PKR/DRK