THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
Civil Revision Petition No.257 of 2023
O R D E R:
The present revision is filed aggrieved by the orders dated 08.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.429 of 2022 in O.S.No.124 of 2016, whereby the application filed under Order 8 Rule 3 of CPC to receive the documents was dismissed.
2. The revision petitioner herein is defendant No.8 in the suit and the respondents/plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking mandatory injunction. The suit is of the year 2016. In the written statement filed by the revision petitioner herein/defendant No.8, it is stated that the defendant Nos.7 and 8 have purchased the land admeasuring Ac.0-10Gts through registered sale deed dated 05.05.2003 from one Narla Prabhakar and defendant No.6 has purchased an extent of Ac.0.05Gts from one Yamsani Srinivas and Narla Prabhakar through registered sale deed dated 08.05.2003. Further it is stated in the written statement that one Saleem Khatoon was the owner and possessor of the property as per the decree in O.S.No.810 of 1984 dated 26.03.1985 and thereafter she sold the said land through simple sale deed to Narla Prabhakar and his name was entered as owner and possessor and thereafter, the MRO, Karimnagar granted record of rights declaring him as owner and possessor as per the proceedings dated 20.02.1995 and his purchase was regularized by collecting required stamp duty C.R.P.No.257 of 2023 2 and registration fee by due enquiry and pattadar pass book and title deed were also issued. It is further stated that the names of the defendant Nos.6, 7 and 8 entered into the revenue records, such as pahanies by grant of record of rights by the MRO and they were declared as owners and possessors of the said property.
3. The revision petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of I.A has stated that he could obtain the certified copies of registered sale deed, pahanies and certified copy of written statmenet, judgment and decree in O.S.No.810 of 1984 recently, as such, he has come up with an application under Order 8, Rule 3 of CPC to receive the said documents.
4. The respondents/plaintiffs herein have filed their counter in the said I.A. Relying on the judgment of this court in 2019 (5) ALT 226 (TS), it is stated that grant of leave is not automatic and unless and until valid reasons are furnished for not filing the documents along with plaint, leave cannot be granted at a later stage. It is further stated that as the suit is of the year 2016 and now it has come up for evidence of PW2 and at this stage, the documents cannot be received.
5. The court below has dismissed the application stating that C.R.P.No.257 of 2023 3 nothing has been mentioned in the petition why the petitioner has not filed the documents along with the written statement and what is the reason for the delay and as a matter of right, the said application cannot be allowed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already taken the said plea about the documents in his written statement and as he could not file those documents, now he has filed the I.A to receive the documents. He has also relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sugandhi (Dead) by Legal Representatives and another v. P. Rajkumar represented by his Power Agent Imam Oli1 and submits that the procedure is handmaid of justice and procedural and technical hurdles shall not allowed to come in way of court while doing substantial justice. He submits that just because the petitioner has not given proper reasons in the affidavit, that itself cannot be a ground to dismiss the petition.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterating the grounds in the counter submits that the court below has rightly dismissed the application.
1 (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 706 C.R.P.No.257 of 2023 4
8. The suit is of the year 2016. When the trial has commenced and the suit is coming up for evidence of PW2, the present application is filed by the petitioner/defendant. Petitioner has not given any reasons why he could file the documents at an earlier point of time and the court below has dismissed the application on the said ground. Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sugandhi's case (stated supra), wherein, it is held that the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party and the courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying up on procedural and technical violation. No doubt, the petitioner has not stated anything in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., but, he laid the foundation in the written statement. In the interest of justice, this court is inclined to allow the revision by setting aside the orders and remand the same to the court below for fresh consideration.
9. In the facts and circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order under revision and the matter is remanded back to the trial court. The petitioner shall file an additional affidavit before the court below giving all the reasons by the reopening day and from thereon, within a period of one week, the court below shall pass appropriate orders on considering the C.R.P.No.257 of 2023 5 additional affidavit. If no such additional affidavit is filed, the court below is at liberty to proceed with the matter. The petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the respondents/plaintiffs towards cost.
The miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand automatically closed.
___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 25th April, 2023 gvl Note: Issue C.C by 28.04.2023.