THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1058 OF 2022
ORDER:
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent.
2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 08.03.2022 in I.A.No.277 of 2021 in O.S.No.46 of 2016 on the file of V Additional District Judge (II-FTC), Warangal.
3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the suit before the lower Court. For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the suit.
4. The plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.46 of 2016 before the Court below for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 15.11.2015 against the defendant. In the said suit defendant filed I.A.No.277 of 2021 in O.S.No.46 of 2016 to receive certain documents viz., Two CDs and one Mobile Phone conversations stating 2 SK,J CRP No.1058 of 2022 that prior to agreement of sale, there were conversations between him and the plaintiff and one Donthula Ramesh and had given particulars of such conversations in the written statement and those conversations were recorded in Mobile Nos.95426 75871, 80190 48924 and 91000 39294 and reduced the same into C.Ds and filed along with the petition.
5. The plaintiff filed counter to the petition stating that the Mobile phone and two CDs conversations are created and fabricated for the purpose of suit and they ought to have filed at the time of filing written statement, if they were available with them and no reasons were put-forth by the petitioner for not filing the same along with the written statement and there are no bonafides.
6. The Court below after hearing both sides, allowed the petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order under revision is contrary to law, weight 3 SK,J CRP No.1058 of 2022 to evidence and probabilities of the case. The reception of alleged additional documents were pertaining to the period between 01.11.2015 and 19.02.2016 and filed belatedly and the Court below without considering the said aspect erroneously allowed the petition and requested to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned order.
8. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent-defendant submits that the Court below rightly allowed the petition filed by the petitioner and there are no grounds in the revision and requested to dismiss the petition.
9. The learned Counsel for the respondent in support of his contention placed the reliance on the following Judgment:
S.Hanumakka and others Vs. Boya Chinthalaiah and others 1
10. After hearing both sides and perusing the records, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner herein is plaintiff in O.S.No.46 of 2016 and the 1 2023 SCC Online TS 1037 4 SK,J CRP No.1058 of 2022 respondent is the defendant in the suit. The petitioner herein filed suit for specific performance of contract under Section 26 read with Order 7 Rule 1 of CPC. The respondent herein filed I.A.No.277 of 2021 in O.S.No.46 of 2016 for receiving the recorded conversation in mobile phone as transferred to two CDs and one mobile (Lava-Iris).
11. The contention of the petitioner is that receiving of Mobile (Lava-Iris) and two CDs in the evidence is misconceived in law and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. If the alleged CD or mobile are in existence, they ought to have filed along with the written statement and there is no reason forthcoming for non filing of the same along with the written statement. After six years, filing of the suit trying to create a new case which was not pleaded and the Court below without taking into account of the same allowed the petition.
5
SK,J CRP No.1058 of 2022
12. The Court below while disposing of the Interlocutory application, considered both sides and observed that the proper authentication and scrutiny is required to establish the voice of the plaintiff and defendant and one V.Ramesh and it is for the petitioner to establish that the mobile numbers as mentioned in the petition belongs to him and the recordings are genuine by way of producing more documents during trial. But, mere receiving the documents would not cause any prejudice to the respondent/plaintiff at this stage.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sugandhi (dead) Vs. P.Raj Kumar 2 held that the procedure is the handmaid of justice and that the Court should take lenient view when an application is made for production of documents under Order 8 Rule 1-A Sub- Rule 3 of CPC.
2 2020 (10) SCC 706 6 SK,J CRP No.1058 of 2022
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sugandhi (dead) Vs. P.Raj Kumar (Supra-2) at para No.9 held as follows:
"The procedure is the handmaid of justice procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the Court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, Courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the Court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the Court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the documents under sub-rule (3)".
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in in Levaku Pedda Reddamma and others Vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma and another 3 at para Nos.2 and 3 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 3 Unreported Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.7452 of 2022 17.05.2022 7 SK,J CRP No.1058 of 2022 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 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.
It is well settled that rules of procedure are hand- made of justice and, therefore, even if there is some delay, the Trial Court should have imposed some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself".
16. The above Judgments were followed by this Court in S.Hanumakka and others Vs. Boya Chinthalaiah and others (Supra-1).
17. In the instant case also, the Court below allowed the petition filed by the respondent under Order 8 Rule 3 of CPC for receiving two CDs and one Mobile (Lava- Iris) subject to condition that the petitioner to establish that mobiles are mentioned in the petition belong to him and recording are genuine by way of producing more documents during trial but mere receiving of the documents would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner/respondent herein.
8
SK,J CRP No.1058 of 2022
18. In view of the same, there is no illegality or informality while passing impugned orders and this Court is not inclined to interfere by exercising powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
19. In view of the above findings, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
20. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE K.SARATH Date:11.10.2023 trr/bb