Majji Atchutarama Gandhi vs Chittumuri Savithri
2022 Latest Caselaw 990 AP

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                         C.R.P.No.1309 of 2021

ORDER:

The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.429 of 2011 before the II

Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, for specific performance of an

agreement of sale dated 25.09.2006, which is said to have been executed

by the petitioners in her favour. After the evidence of the respondent had

been completed and when the matter was coming for the evidence of the

petitioners, I.A.No.62 of 2021 has been filed by the petitioners seeking

leave of the trial Court to receive certain documents. These documents

are said to be a photo copy of an agreement of sale dated 06.05.2006 and

another sale agreement dated 15.08.2006 showing different sale

considerations and that these documents are necessary to prove the case

of the petitioners. It was further stated that these documents came to

light when the 4th petitioner found these documents while clearing papers

in an old trunk. The said application, after contest, was dismissed by the

trial Court by an order dated 08.11.2021. Aggrieved by the said order, the

petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present revision

petition.

2. The trial Court held that the petitioners had been obtaining

adjournments on various counts and had filed the present application

after having taken a number of adjournments. The trial Court considered

the original sale agreement dated 15.08.2006, which is said to be an

agreement of sale executed between the 2nd petitioner herein and the

father of the 2nd petitioner in favour of the respondent herein in relation to

the suit schedule property. The photo copy of the agreement dated 2 RRR,J C.R.P.No.1309 of 2021

06.05.2006 is also said to be a sale agreement executed between the 2 nd

petitioner and her father in favour of the respondent.

3. The trial Court took the view that normally an agreement of

sale executed between the parties would be in possession of the buyer

and disbelieved the contention of the petitioners that these documents

were found in an old trunk. The trial Court also went into the question of

admissibility of the documents to arrive at a finding and dismissed the

petition.

4. Sri Nagaraju Naguru, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners submits that the trial Court could not have gone into the

question of admissibility of the documents at the stage of receiving the

documents and the only issue that the trial Court could have gone into as

to whether the delay in filing these documents was properly explained by

the petitioners or not. He further submits that the petitioners were

unaware of these documents at a prior stage and came to know of the

documents only when the 4th petitioner had found these documents in an

old trunk. He would submit that the trial Court ought to have taken a

liberal view and allowed the said application so as to enable the

petitioners to set out their case properly.

5. Sri M. Devi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent would submit that the contentions raised by the petitioners

are clearly far fetching and unbelievable. He would submit that the trial

Court had not committed any error in disbelieving the version of the

petitioners and in dismissing the application. He would further rely upon

the judgments of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh and

erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of

Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh reported in Ravi Satish vs. 3 RRR,J C.R.P.No.1309 of 2021

Edala Durga Prasad and Ors.,1 and R. Saraswathi vs. P.

Rajamanikyam and Ors.2. He specifically relies upon these judgments

to contend that the documents that the petitioners ought to have

produced are at the time of filing of their written statement and could

have sought leave to file them later only by giving a valid reason for not

filing these documents along with the written statement. He would submit

that the petitioners have not given any valid reason except coming up

with a story of having found the papers in an old trunk at a belated stage.

6. The provisions of Order VIII Rule 1-A(1)and (3) stipulates

that the defendants in a suit have to produce the documents that they

would be relying upon, along with written statement. If any documents

are sought to be produced later, the same can only be done by obtaining

leave of the Court.

7. The Courts have considered the issue of when leave of the

Court can be given for production of documents at a later stage. The

aforesaid two judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent

would suffice to set out the conditions in which such leave can be

granted. A reading of these two judgments would show that such leave

can be granted only when the said defendants can demonstrate that they

could not have filed these documents earlier either because they were not

within their knowledge or because they were unable to produce these

documents for reasons beyond their control.

8. In the present case, the documents that are sought to be

produced by the petitioners are stated to have been discovered at the

time when their evidence was being recorded. This contention cannot be

2009 (3) ALT 236

2015 (5) ALT 527 4 RRR,J C.R.P.No.1309 of 2021

accepted for a simple reason. The parties to both the documents, which

are now sought to be produced, are said to be the petitioners and the

respondent. In such circumstances, the petitioners would definitely

remember the execution of such documents and would have raised this

issue in their written statement. It appears that no such mention has been

made. Further the agreement of sale would be in the custody of the

respondent as the buyer, and no explanation is given as to how such

documents were retained in the custody of the petitioners.

9. For all the aforesaid reasons, the version put forward by the

petitioners that these two documents were found in an old trunk at a

belated stage, is not credible and would have to be rejected. In the

circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the

trial Court.

10. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous

petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

23rd February, 2022 Js.

                          5                             RRR,J
                                       C.R.P.No.1309 of 2021




      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO




               C.R.P.No.1309 of 2021




                23rd February, 2021
Js.