HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.630 AND 632 OF 2021
Date: 10.08.2021
CRP No.630 of 2021:
Between:
Vandanapu @ Anumndla Rajamani @ Rajeshwari,
s/o. Srinivas, Aged about 36 years, occu: Household,
r/o. Kannegundla village, Dornakal Mandal,
Mahabubabad district.
.....Petitioner/
5th defendant
And
1.Yedamakanti Jyothi Rani w/o. Srinivas Rao,
Aged about 50 years, occu: Housewife,
r/o. Dornakal village and mandal,
Mahabubabad district
.....Respondent/plaintiff
2. Vandanapu Venkat Rao (died)
3. Vemulapalli Vijayalaxmi
4. Soma Dhanalaxmi
5. Kalakota Vanisree
6. Avudoddi Pullaiah
7. Badavath Samya (respondents 2 to 7 are not necessary parties to this revision) .... Respondents/plaintiff The Court made the following:
PNR,J CRP Nos.630 & 632 of 2021 2 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.630 AND 632 OF 2021 COMMON ORDER:
Heard Mr. M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. V.Rohith learned counsel for respondent no.1 in both the revision petitions.
2. Revision petitioner is the 5th defendant in O.S.No.163 of 2012 pending in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad. First respondent is plaintiff. Parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.
3. Plaintiff instituted O.S.No.163 of 2012 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad praying to grant preliminary decree holding that plaintiff and defendant nos.2 to 5 are entitled to 1/5th share each in the suit schedule 'A' property and to appoint Advocate-Commissioner to divide suit schedule property at the rate of 1/5th share each. Plaintiff filed I.A.No.103 of 2020 under Section 151 C.P.C. praying to grant leave and permit the plaintiff to file additional chief-affidavit of P.W.1. Plaintiff also filed I.A.No.102 of 2020 under Order VII Rule 14 (1) and (3) read with Section 151 of C.P.C., praying to condone the delay in filing the list of documents. By orders dated 18.03.2021, Court below allowed I.A.Nos.102 and 103 of 2020.
4. Learned counsel for 5th defendant Mr. Damodar Reddy submitted that when the suit was instituted in the year 2012, plaintiff claimed that suit scheduled properties are the joint family properties of her father and sought for partition. This claim of the plaintiff was opposed by the 5th defendant. 5th defendant filed PNR,J CRP Nos.630 & 632 of 2021 3 written statement asserting that suit schedule properties are not joint family properties, but are the properties belonging to father of the plaintiff. He therefore submitted that all along it was a specific case that suit schedule properties are not joint family properties, but properties belong to father of the plaintiff. Therefore, after completion of evidence of plaintiff, at the stage of cross- examination, plaintiff cannot seek to bring additional evidence contrary to her consistent stand.
5. He further submitted that it is settled principle of law that plaintiff has to furnish list of documents, on which reliance is placed when suit was instituted and should be marked during the course of recording of evidence of plaintiff. Plaintiff could not have kept quiet all along, allow the completion of evidence of plaintiff and when matter is coming up for cross-examination of the plaintiff, she could not have filed these petitions. Such course is not permissible, is contrary to Order VII Rule 14 of CPC and in violation of principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court. These petitions are filed only to drag on the suit and protract the litigation. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Uppu Hymavathi Mahila Sangam, rep.by its President M.Anjana Devi and others vs. Sri Vidyaniketan Public School, rep.by its Correspondent, Anakapalle and others1.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that there is no change in the stand of plaintiff. What is sought to be presented is only the extracts of the revenue records to establish 1 2018 (2) ALT 26 PNR,J CRP Nos.630 & 632 of 2021 4 how the entries reflected the status of suit schedule land and they are public documents. There is no absolute bar to present the additional evidence. In the interest of justice and for proper adjudication, additional evidence can be presented at any time of the trial. He would submit that the discretion was validly exercised by the trial Court and, therefore, no case is made out for interference of this Court in revisional jurisdiction. He further submitted that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner by reopening the evidence of the plaintiff to present additional evidence.
7. A party to a suit should present his evidence at the earliest point of time. That being so, it has become routine for parties to introduce additional evidence during various stages of the suit. Filing petition after petition by parties to the litigation on one plea or the other is the major impediment in disposal of civil cases expeditiously. In order to curb the practice of parties producing additional evidence at any stage of the suit proceedings resulting in protracting the litigation causing inordinate delay in conclusion of the cases in the civil Courts, Order VII Rule 14 CPC was amended by Act 46 of 1999. Sub-Rule (1) mandates, plaintiff to furnish the list of documents on which reliance is placed by him, to produce the same in the Court when the plaint is presented and shall deliver the documents and copies thereof to be filed with the plaint. Sub-Rule (2) requires that if a document is not in possession or power of the plaintiff, he should state in whose possession and power the said document is available. Sub-Rule (3) carves out an exception to Sub-Rules (1) and (2) and enables plaintiffs to file additional evidence which was not shown in the list of documents PNR,J CRP Nos.630 & 632 of 2021 5 filed along with the plaint. Sub-Rule (3) vests discretion in the trial Court to permit additional evidence which could not be filed along with the plaint.
8. Having regard to the scheme of CPC, the plaintiff has to seek leave of the Court to present additional evidence which was not shown in the list of documents filed along with the plaint and/or shown but documents were not filed as they were not in his possession/unavailable/could not be discovered. He must also explain relevancy of those documents. Thus, presentation of additional evidence after the plaint was filed is not a matter of course. Only on satisfaction of the reasons assigned and on consideration of the relevancy of the documents, the trial Court may exercise its discretion to permit presentation of the additional documents. Satisfaction of the Court to accept the plea of plaintiff to present additional evidence at a later stage depends on the facts of the case, the nature of documents sought to be presented, reasons assigned, genuineness of the claim and the stage of the suit. The trial Court is required to assess the bona fides of the claim and whether such additional evidence would aid in proper adjudication of the suit claim while exercising its discretion. Similar provision is incorporated in Order VIII Rule 1-A of CPC with reference to defendant's plea.
9. Amendments carried out to Order VII of CPC are intended to curb the tendency of filing documents after plaint was filed and to discipline the parties. The scope of amended Order VII Rule 14 of CPC and the discretion vested in the civil Court was subject of PNR,J CRP Nos.630 & 632 of 2021 6 debate and decision in plethora of precedents. Sufficient to note few of land mark decisions as under.
9.1. It is no doubt true that, 'Procedural law not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice' (Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab Vs. Kumar and others2- paragraph-14). However, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph- 13, 'no person has a vested right in any course of procedure. He has only the right of prosecution or defence in the manner for the time being by or for the court in which the case is pending, and if, by an Act of Parliament the mode of procedure is altered, he has no other right than to proceed according to the altered mode." (see Blyth Vs.Blyth (1996) 1 All ER 524)'.
9.2. In BAGAI CONSTRUCTION Vs GUPTA BUILDING MATERIAL STORE3, the Trial Court rejected the applications filed under Order VII/Rule14 read with Section 151 of CPC and Order 18/Rule 17 of CPC. In the revision, the High Court reversed the decision of the Trial Court. On appeal Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Trial Court. Supreme Court observed as under:
"15. After change of various provisions by way of amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure, it is desirable that the recording of evidence should be continuous and followed by arguments and decision thereon within a reasonable time. This Court has repeatedly held that courts should constantly endeavour to follow such a time schedule. If the same is not followed, the purpose of amending several provisions in the Code would get defeated. In fact, applications for adjournments, reopening and recalling are interim measures, could be as far as possible avoided and only in compelling and acceptable reasons, those applications are to be considered......" (emphasis supplied) 2 (2006) 1 SCC 46 3 (2013) 14 SCC 1 PNR,J CRP Nos.630 & 632 of 2021 7 9.3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also considered the decision in K.K.Velusamy v. N.Palanisamy4. In K.K.Velusamy, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"15. ....... The need for the court to act in a manner to achieve the ends of justice (subject to the need to comply with the law) does not end when arguments are heard and judgment is reserved. If there is abuse of the process of the court, or if interests of justice require the court to do something or take note of something, the discretion to do those things does not disappear merely because the arguments are heard, either fully or partly."
9.4. As held in Voruganti Narayaan Rao vs. Bodla Rammurthy and others5, unless reasons assigned show sufficient cause Court should not permit presentation of additional evidence.
As held in Ravi Satish vs. Edala Durga Prasad6 case grant of leave by the Court is not for mere asking and Court is not acting like a post-office.
9.5. The scope of power of trial Court in resorting to provision under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC was considered by the Supreme Court in K.K.Velusamy. Supreme Court observed that though Order XVIII Rule 17 enables the Court, at any stage of the suit, to recall any witness, who was already examined and to put such question as it thinks fit, but should be exercised sparingly, in appropriate cases, to meet the ends of justice, should not be allowed to be used to abuse process of law and to protract the litigation.
9.6. Supreme Court has delineated various issues that require consideration in exercise of power under section 151 CPC. Supreme Court cautioned that provision under section 151 CPC 4 (2011) 11 SCC 275 5 2011 (6) ALD 142 6 2009 (3) ALT 236 PNR,J CRP Nos.630 & 632 of 2021 8 cannot be routinely invoked for reopening the evidence or recalling the witnesses and should be used only to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of its process; that the availability of power under Section 151 CPC is coextensive and may be used where the remedy or procedure is not provided in CPC. It is complementary. Since no guidelines are prescribed in CPC, such power should be resorted to sparingly and in exercise of sound discretion and the wisdom of the Court and in given facts and circumstances of the case, which would have to be used with circumspection and care. It is not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who was already examined.
9.7. Supreme Court further observed as under:
"14 ........ But if there is a time gap between the completion of evidence and hearing of the arguments, for whatsoever reason, and if in that interregnum, a party comes across some evidence which he could not lay his hands on earlier, or some evidence in regard to the conduct or action of the other party comes into existence, the court may in exercise of its inherent power under Section 151 of the Code, permit the production of such evidence if it is relevant and necessary in the interest of justice, subject to such terms as the court may deem fit to impose."
10. The principle deducible from these decisions is, discretionary power vested in Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC or independently under Section 151 should be exercised sparingly and such applications should be accepted only for compelling reasons and on sufficient justification being shown, overarching consideration being to do substantial justice inter parties. The bona fides of the party which seek to introduce additional evidence should be considered and cannot be allowed in a routine manner.
11. It has to be remembered that mere non-mention of the documents in the plaint or subsequent incidental or supplemental PNR,J CRP Nos.630 & 632 of 2021 9 proceedings in the suit does not in any manner affect the power of the Court to grant leave to produce additional evidence at the subsequent stage. Non-mentioning of the documents initial, which are sought to be produced at the subsequent stage, is a curable defect. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court consistently cautioning the trial Courts not to adopt unduly liberal approach in such matters. Thus, while considering the application to present additional evidence the Court must exercise sound discretion keeping in mind the requirement to elicit truth and to render substantial justice between the parties.
12. The suit is at the stage of cross-examination of P.W.1. The documents sought to be presented are extracts from the revenue records. They only reflect the entries in revenue records. Production of these documents does not impinge upon in any manner right of defence of defendants. Defendants can always call upon the plaintiff to prove the genuineness of the documents.
13. In the facts of these cases, I do not see any error in exercising discretion by the Court below accepting the plea of petitioner/plaintiff. Civil Revision Petitions fail. They are accordingly dismissed. It is needless to observe that the presentation of additional evidence is subject to relevancy and admissibility of the documents. Pending miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 10.08.2021 Kkm PNR,J CRP Nos.630 & 632 of 2021 10 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.630 & 632 OF 2021 Date: 10.08.2021 kkm