THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY
C.R.P.No.2256 of 2022
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the respondent No.3-M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, assailing the order dated 12.07.2022 in IA No.28 of 2022 in MVOP No.273 of 2018 on the file of the learned XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad.
2. That application in IA No.28 of 2022 was filed under Order XVI, Rules-6 & 7 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short 'CPC') to summon the Income Tax Officer, ITO Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, to produce the income tax returns pertaining to PW.3 for the assessment year 2018-19 and to give evidence in that regard.
3. The trial Court having considered the rival contentions dismissed the said application with an observation that PW.3 is only the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Company by name "Organic Trends Inc" and he was cross-examined at length, now the petitioner is seeking to summon the income tax returns of PW.3 Page 2 of 6 AVR,J CRP No.2256 of 2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2018-19. Evidently, the deceased was not employed under PW.3, but said to be employed in the said company, therefore, the income tax returns of PW.3 are no way relevant for proper adjudication of the matter. It was further observed by the trial Court that the petitioner herein earlier filed three petitions in IA Nos.386, 387 and 388 of 2021 to recall, to reopen the case and to direct PW.3 to produce some documents and said applications were dismissed as per the order dated 09.11.2021, as such the present petition serves no useful purpose since the income tax returns of PW.3 have no bearing at all.
4. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. The submissions made on either side have received due consideration by this Court.
5. Be it stated that the petitioner herein is the respondent No.3 in MVOP No.273 of 2018 before the learned XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. It appears the evidence on behalf of petitioners was concluded and thereafter, the evidence on behalf of respondents is in progress in MVOP No.273 of Page 3 of 6 AVR,J CRP No.2256 of 2022 2018, and it was filed by the parents of the deceased claiming compensation for accidental death of their son, G. Chandrakanth Reddy. Undisputedly, the petitioner herein has filed earlier IA Nos.386, 387 and 388 of 2021 to reopen the petitioners' evidence, to recall PW.3 and to direct PW.3 to produce some documents and the said applications were dismissed by the trial Court on 09.11.2021. PW.3 is not the employer of the deceased, but he is only the CEO of the company by name "Organic Trends Inc" where the deceased was an employee and worked only for about eight days prior to his death. Accordingly, the petitioners in MVOP No.273 of 2008 have examined PW.3-CEO of the said company only to establish that the deceased was employed in their company and that he was getting an amount of Rs.68,000/- per month salary.
6. Order-XVI of CPC deals with summoning and attendance of witnesses. This application is filed under Order-XVI Rules-6 & 7 of CPC only to summon the Income Tax Officer, ITO towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad to produce income tax returns of PW.3 for the assessment year 2018-19. There is no averment in the supporting Page 4 of 6 AVR,J CRP No.2256 of 2022 affidavit to the effect that efforts were made by the petitioners for securing the income tax returns of PW.3. That apart, undisputedly the deceased was employed in a company by name "Organic Trends Inc" wherein PW.3 is working as CEO and he has given evidence with reference to the material available on record.
7. It was never the case of the petitioners that the deceased was employed under PW.3. Therefore, the income tax returns of PW.3 are no way relevant for proper adjudication of the matter. As such, in my considered opinion, the trial Curt has rightly concluded that the present petition serves no useful purpose, as the income tax returns pertaining to PW.3 have no bearing at all and summoning the concerned Income Tax Officer to produce the income tax returns of PW.3 is a futile exercise.
8. In this context, I may also refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s. Bagai Construction, through its Proprietor Lalit Bagai v. M/s. Gupta Building Material Store1 wherein it is held that 1 AIR 2013 SC 1849 Page 5 of 6 AVR,J CRP No.2256 of 2022 power to receive additional documents or to recall witnesses after closure of the evidence has to be exercised sparingly and in appropriate cases and not as a general rule merely on the ground that recall of such witnesses or summoning of such documents would not cause any prejudice to the parties. In para-12 of the said judgment, it was further held that after change of various provisions by way of amendment in C.P.C., it is desirable that the recording of evidence should be continuous and followed by arguments and decision thereon within a reasonable time. When the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Court should constantly endeavour to follow such time schedule and if the same is not followed, the purpose of amending several provisions in the Code would get defeated.
9. In the instant case, the present application is filed after closure of the petitioners' evidence and after dismissal of IA Nos.386, 387 and 388 of 2022 as per the order dated 09.11.2021 to reopen the case, to recall PW.3 and to direct him to produce some other documents. That apart, evidently the deceased was not employed under Page 6 of 6 AVR,J CRP No.2256 of 2022 PW.3 and the income tax returns of PW.3 either relating to the assessment year 2018-19 or relating to any further period have no bearing at all.
10. Therefore, on overall examination of the entire material available on record and also considering the stage of trial in MVOP No.273 of 2018, I do not find any irregularity committed by the trial Court in the order impugned and such order does not warrant any interference by this Court and it is sustained.
11. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending in this civil revision petition, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY, J.
Date: 17.11.2022 Isn