Telangana High Court
Kodicherlarukmaiah Died Per L.Rs vs Aligani Chandra Lingam on 28 June, 2024
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.473, 474 and 476 of 2024 COMMON ORDER:
These are three Civil Revision Petitions which have been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 01.12.2023 in I.A.Nos.777, 778 and 779 of 2023 in O.S.No.938 of 2022 passed by theIX Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar.
2. Heard Mr. R. Anurag, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Lingala Sudheer, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants before the Court below. For convenience, they will hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed before the Court below.
4. Three interlocutory applications were filed for recall and reopen the evidence of DW.1 and to receive the said documents. Initially this Court while hearing the matter on admission on 09.02.2024 had stayed the further proceedings until further orders. The present Civil Revision Petitions are those which have been filed on 08.02.2024. Page 2 of 11
5. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs had filed the Suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the Suit schedule property admeasuring 2.29 guntas in Survey No.82 situated at Nagireddy Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and also Suit schedule property admeasuring 4.32 guntas in Survey No.84 situated at Nagireddy Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. After the pleadings were completed, the evidence of both sides were closed and the Suit schedule property was fixed for final arguments of the matter. Meanwhile, the defendants could obtain certain documents pertaining to the Suit schedule property and according to the defendants these documents were very much relevant for proper adjudication of the Suit itself. Therefore, the defendants filed three interlocutory applications before the Court below vide I.A.Nos.722, 723 and 724 of 2023. Since the defendants filed the aforesaid three interlocutory applications, the plaintiffs also filed three interlocutory applications i.e. I.A.Nos.777, 778 and 779 of 2023. All these interlocutory applications came up for hearing and the Court below vide docket order dated 01.12.2023 rejected all the six interlocutory applications. Page 3 of 11
6. The defendants were aggrieved of the order dated 01.12.2023 so far as rejection of their interlocutory applications i.e.I.A.Nos.722, 723 and 724 of 2023. The defendants preferred three separate Civil Revision Petitions challenging the rejection of their interlocutory applications vide Civil Revision Petition No.3751 of 2023, Civil Revision Petition No.3756 of 2023 and Civil Revision Petition No.3761 of 2023 which stood decided vide common order dated 12.01.2024.
7. The Honourable Bench hearing the three Civil Revision Petitions allowed the petitions subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- holding that the documents which are sought to be marked are public documents and no prejudice would be caused to anyone; and also with a direction to the Court below to proceed and decide the Suit itself within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order dated 12.01.2024.
8. Admittedly, the three Civil Revision Petitions were decided by- parte and the plaintiffs were also duly represented and had contested the Civil Revision Petitions on its own merits. The plaintiffs apparently were not aggrieved of the rejection of their interlocutory applications till the Civil Revision Petitions filed by the defendants Page 4 of 11 stood allowed on 12.01.2024. The presentthree Civil Revision Petitionsas mentioned earlier were in fact filed only on 08.02.2024 i.e. much after the Civil Revision Petitions of the defendants stood allowed.
9. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the rejection of the interlocutory applications vide order dated 01.12.2023 by the Court below so far as recall and reopen the evidence of DW.1 and to receive the said documents are concerned, the petitioners/plaintiffs are entitled a treatment in parity in the light of the three Civil Revision Petitions which were filed by the defendants stood allowed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the documents which they want to get marked by way of I.A.Nos.779 of 2024 i.e. the receipt of documents are very much relevant for proper adjudication of the present Suit for declaration of title.
10. Likewise, it was also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that these are documents which were obtained subsequently under the Right to Information Act and it has become all the more necessary in the light of the reopening of the case at the behest of the defendants vide the three Civil Revision Petitions Page 5 of 11 mentioned above. Therefore, the three Civil Revision Petitions may also be allowed and appropriate directions be given and if necessary even impose conditions.
11. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents opposing the Civil Revision Petitions contended that the Civil Revision Petitions are not worth admitting and are totally devoid of merits. In fact, the three interlocutory applications that the plaintiffs had filed itself was not sustainable and the Court below had rightly rejected the same. It was the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that upon plain reading of the three interlocutory applications itself would be revealing that there were no reasons whatsoever assigned by the plaintiffs in the three interlocutory applications as to the necessity for bringing the said documents on record and for recalling the witnesses.
12. It was also the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that no justification was also given by the plaintiffs in their application as to why theydid not move the interlocutory applications till now and waited for the trial to reach to its penultimate stage while filing the interlocutory applications for recall and reopen the evidence of DW.1 and to receive the said documents. Page 6 of 11
13. Lastly, it was contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the Civil Revision Petitions also should not be entertained because even after filing of the Civil Revision Petitions by the defendants, the plaintiffs did not think it proper to challenge the interlocutory applications of their which stood rejected. Moreover, even after allowing the Civil Revision Petitions of the defendants, the plaintiffs proceeded with the trial and the stage has reached where even the arguments were advanced on both sides and it is thereafter that the Civil Revision Petitions was pressed upon by the plaintiffs and have obtained an interim protection. Therefore, by conduct also the plaintiffs did not deserve any relief and prayed for rejection of the three Civil Revision Petitions.
14. A plain perusal of the contents and pleadings of the three interlocutory applications which the plaintiffs have filed for recall and reopen the evidence of DW.1 and to receive the said documents respectively, it would clearly reflect that the plaintiffs are totally silent about the facts and circumstances which necessitated them to file those interlocutory applications at the stage of final arguments of the Suit. There is no averment in the pleadings that these documents were not within the knowledge and notice of the plaintiffs. There are Page 7 of 11 also no reasons mentioned as to why they could not obtain or bring it on record earlier.
15. Another fact which needs serious consideration is that the Civil Revision Petitions which were filed by the defendants stood allowed on 12.01.2024. Pursuant to the directions, the Court below proceeded with the same and the matter was taken up for hearing on 01.02.2024, on which date, as per the of the High Court the documents were taken on record. DW.1 was recalled and documents were marked as B22-24. He was also cross-examined by the plaintiffs and thereafter the matter stood posted for final arguments on 06.02.2024. On 06.02.2024, the plaintiffs' arguments started and it got concluded on 09.02.2024 on which date the defendants also concluded their arguments and thereafter the matter was posted for final orders. In between, on 08.02.2024, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.
16. From the conduct, what is apparent is that from 01.12.2023 i.e. the date on which the interlocutory applications were rejected till 06.02.2024 when the final arguments had begun, the plaintiffs were not aggrieved of the said order. The plaintiffs did not think it proper to challenge these interlocutory applications when the defendants Page 8 of 11 had filed Civil Revision Petitions challenging the rejection of their interlocutory applications. They did not think it even proper to file the Civil Revision Petitions while the Civil Revision Petitions of the defendants were entertained and even stood allowed on 12.01.2024 and it was only after the final arguments had been advanced by the plaintiffs that they thought of filing of the Civil Revision Petitions.
17. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner had been strongly harping on the parity, but what is also required to be appreciated is the fact that the plaintiffs had not shown any bona fides for their not filing the Civil Revision Petitions promptly or even when the defendants had questioned by way of Civil Revision Petitions so far as the rejection of their interlocutory applications are concerned. Further what is also reflected is that in the three interlocutory applications that have been filed, the plaintiffs have not said anything about the relevancy of the documents which they intend to bring on record, the reason for which it is brought on record is not mentioned and the justification for not having filed earlier is also not reflected. On the contrary, the perusal of these documents would show that the pleadings of the Suit bear the mentioning of couple of these very documents already being marked. Page 9 of 11 Yet the plaintiffs want it to bring on record i.e. those documents which already stand marked.
18. In the given factual circumstances of the case, this Court is of the firm view that the plaintiffs cannot be now permitted to press upon the interlocutory applications which for a considerable long period of time they themselves did not want to challenge. This Court is also reluctant to take into consideration the interlocutory applications for the simple reason that even subsequent to the allowing of the Civil Revision Petitions filed by the defendants, the plaintiffs and their counsel proceeded with the trial and had even advanced their final arguments and now at a later stage they cannot be permitted to going for recall, reopen and receipt of the documents.
19. It would be appropriate at this juncture to take note of the observations in the case of K.K. Veluswamy vs. N. Palaniswamy 1 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held at paragraph Nos.14 and 19as under:
"14. The amended provisions of the Code contemplate and expect a trial court to hear the arguments immediately after the completion of evidence and then proceed to judgment.
1 (2011) 11 SCC 275 Page 10 of 11 Therefore, it was unnecessary to have an express provision for reopening the evidence to examine a fresh witness or for recalling any witness for further examination. 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.
.... ... .... .
19. We may add a word of caution. The power under Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite trials. But where the application is found to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that non-production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the court may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh evidence. But if it does so, it should ensure that the process does not become a protracting tactic. The court should firstly award appropriate costs to the other party to compensate for the delay. Secondly, the court should Page 11 of 11 take up and complete the case within a fixed time schedule so that the delay is avoided. Thirdly, if the application is found to be mischievous, or frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with heavy costs."
20. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioners/plaintiffs for recalling, reopening and receipt of the said documents by way of the three interlocutory applications that stand rejected on 01.12.2023 by the Court below. The three Civil Revision Petitions therefore being devoid of merits, stand dismissed. No costs.
21. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J Date: 28.06.2024 GSD