THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
C.R.P.No.1138 OF 2017
ORDER:
This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 13.02.2017 in I.A.No.102 of 2017 in O.S.No.880 of 2011, on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, wherein the said application filed by the respondent No.1 herein (defendant No.1) under Order VIII Rule 1(a) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short, 'CPC') to receive the certified copy of the common order dated 24.08.2012 in W.P.Nos.1621 & 3168 of 2012, was allowed
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the record.
3. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.880 of 2011 against respondent No.1 herein/defendant No.1 and another for declaration and consequential injunction in respect of suit schedule property. While the arguments in the suit were heard in 2 part, respondent No.1 herein filed I.A.No.102 of 2017 to receive the certified copy of the common order dated 24.08.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.1621 & 3168 of 2012. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that though reference of the said judgment was made in the plaint and the written statement, due to oversight, the certified copy of the same was not filed before the Court below and marked, as the said judgment is crucial for adjudication of the case. The petitioner filed counter affidavit opposing the said application and stating that the judgment now sought to be relied upon was despatched and marked to the counsel on 13.09.2012 and no reasons were stated as to why the said judgment was held for nearly four and half years. After hearing both sides, the Court below allowed I.A.No.102 of 2017. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the trial Court has committed error in allowing the application filed for receiving the documents though no reasons were stated in the application for not producing the said judgment along with the written statement. In support of his contentions, learned counsel 3 placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in N.PREMAIAH AND OTHERS v. NARMALA DEVA RAJ AND ANOTHER1 and MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSRTC, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS v. P.V.SURYA NARAYANA2.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1, while supporting the impugned order, would contend that there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial Court and the certified copy of the judgment was rightly received by the trial Court for proper adjudication of the case. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCE PRIVATE LIMTIED AND ANOTHER v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION3.
6. In the affidavit filed in support of the application under Order VIII Rule 1(a) read with Section 151 CPC to receive the subject document, respondent No.1 stated that though it is mentioned in the plaint and written statement about the said 1 2015(2) ALD 159 2 2017(4) ALD 733 3 (2022) 10 SCC 592 4 document, the same was not filed by oversight and the said document is crucial for adjudication of the case. The objection of revision petitioner is that no valid reasons have been assigned as to filing of the said document belatedly, especially when the suit is at the stage of arguments.
7. The contention of respondent No.1 herein is that prior to filing of the suit, the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam passed resumption orders vide letter dated 12.09.2011 and letter dated 02.11.2011 in respect of the suit schedule property admeasuring Acs.3-20 Gts., in Sy.No.300/26 of Kongarakalan Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Lands (Prohibition and Transfer) Act, 1977. The said proceedings have been challenged before this Court in W.P.No.1621 & 3168 of 2012 and the same was allowed by common order dated 24.08.2012. In the said order, it was observed that the present suit would decide the manner in which the ex gratia amount has to be paid to the petitioner/plaintiff. It appears that the subject document is filed belatedly, but the relevancy of the document has been 5 explained by respondent No.1 in the application filed by him for receiving the document.
8. The only ground raised by the petitioner herein is that no valid reasons were assigned for the delay in filing the said document. The document is nothing but a common order passed by this Court. I do not think that it would cause any prejudice to the case of the petitioner if the same is received in evidence.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the dispute between the parties, the subject document is very much relevant for proper adjudication of the case. Since the details of the judgment have been given by both the parties as stated by respondent No.1, though it is filed belatedly, the same does not cause prejudice to the case of respondent No.1. The reasons for delay in filing the common order dated 24.08.2012 passed in W.P.No.1621 & 3168 of 2012 belatedly have been explained satisfactorily.
10. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality 6 warranting interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
11. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand closed.
_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 29.03.2023 Lrkm