Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Unknown vs The Hon'Ble Ms Justice ... on 20 October, 2022

           THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

          CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.67 & 70 of 2021

COMMON ORDER:

      C.R.P.No.70 of 2021 is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India against the order dated 25.11.2020 in

I.A.No.356 of 2020 in O.S.No.124 of 2014 on the file of the

Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Pitapuram, which is filed

to reopen the suit for adducing additional evidence, by which

the petition was dismissed with costs.

2.    C.R.P.No.67 of 2020 is filed against the order dated

25.11.2020 in I.A.No.357 of 2020 in O.S.No.124 of 2014 on the

file of the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Pitapuram,

which is filed to recall DW-1 for the purpose of marking the

documents on her behalf, by which the petition was dismissed

since I.A.No.356 of 2020 was dismissed.

3.    As both orders arose out of two petitions based on similar

facts and contentions raised, a common order is being passed.

4.    The revision petitioner filed these petitions stating that

the respondents filed suit for permanent injunction against the

petitioners and that the first petitioner/first defendant and her

sister filed a land grabbing petition before the District Court of

Pitapuram against these respondents/plaintiffs in respect of

Ac.0.30 cents of land which is inclusive of the present suit

schedule property and the said land grabbing petition is

pending. The plaintiffs are claiming that the suit schedule

property is their ancestral property and that they are in

possession of the property. It is further contended that the

original documents relating to the property of the first defendant

and her sister pertaining to title and possession have been filed

in the said land grabbing petition and are necessary for the

purpose of this case, but while preparing written arguments, the

counsel for the petitioners found that these documents could

not be filed in the suit by oversight and, therefore, it is

necessary to reopen the suit, recall DW.1/D.1 for the purpose of

filing them in evidence.

5. During the course of arguments, it is also represented

that one more connected petition I.A.No.358 of 2020 was also

filed to receive these documents basing on which land grabbing

case was filed and also those documents are referred in the

written statement filed by them, but due to mistake civil

revision petition was not filed against the order passed in

I.A.No.358 of 2020 dismissing the same. In fact, for the receipt

of these documents in evidence only, the other two applications

I.A.No.356 of 2020 and 357 of 2020 were filed, but the trial

Court passed a reasoned order in I.A.No.356 of 2020 and

passed a consequential orders in I.A.Nos.357 of 2020 and 358

of 2020 by a brief order 'no counter filed. I.A.No.356 of 2020

dismissed. Hence, this petition is dismissed'.

6. Having aggrieved by the orders dismissing the petitions,

these revision petitions are filed on the grounds that the trial

Court failed to give proper opportunity to the petitioners, though

the documents sought to be filed are very much required to

substantiate the case of the petitioners and that the trial Court

should have appreciated that the petitioners were not advised to

file these documents and further that the prevalence of Covid-

19 pandamic situation also contributed for the delay.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

respondents.

8. As can be seen from the record, no counter was filed by

the respondents/plaintiffs in any of the petitions. In fact, the

petitions were posted for the first time to 25.11.2020 for counter

and disposal and on that day, as the counters were not filed, the

petitions were disposed of on merits.

9. As can be seen from the written statement, the petitioners

have taken contention that the first defendant and her sister got

the property of Ac.0.78 cents from Koka Meenakshi by virtue of

her will dated 20.09.1990 and whereas Koka Meenakshi got

that property by a sale deed dated 06.09.1949 from Rajah of

Pitapuram vide document No.1421/1949, basing on which, she

filed O.S.No.306 of 1981 on the file of the court of II Additional

Sub-Court Kakinada which is renumbered as O.S.No.16 of 1987

on transfer to the court of Subordinate Judge at Pitapuram for

permanent injunction initially and later got amended as a suit

for declaration and recovery of possession of the entire extent of

Ac.0.78 cents of land and the said suit was filed against Palivela

Ramakrishna and others and in that suit the first defendant's

brother by name Koka Venkata Subba Rao is also a second

plaintiff who used to help the first defendant and her sister and

ultimately the suit was decreed and execution petition

E.P.No.11 of 1995 was also filed and obtained delivery of

Ac.0.78 cents through Amin on 15.10.1995, but the brother of

the first defendant colluded with Majeti people and filed another

E.P.No.42 of 2000 and misrepresented to the first defendant

and her sister that possession of Ac.0.48 cents only were

delivered out of Ac.0.67 ¼ cents and the remaining extent was

occupied by Majeti people who are the plaintiffs. In view of all

these facts, they subsequently filed land grabbing case against

the plaintiffs in respect of Ac.0.30 cents of land and further that

the first defendant and her sister Rekha Naidu also filed

O.S.No.52 of 2008 on the file of IV Additional District Judge,

Kakinada against her brothers and the same was also decreed

as initially their brother Koka Venkata Subba Rao remained ex

parte and died on 30.08.2008, while the other defendant Jagan

Mohan put up false defence and remained ex parte. In view of

these facts pleaded in the written statement, I.A.No.358 of 2020

was filed to receive the following documents:

1. Certified copy of sale deed dated 06.09.1949 vide document No.1421 of 1949

2. Certified copy of decree and judgment in O.S.No.16 of 1987 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Pithapuram

3. Certified copy of E.A.No.88 of 1994 in O.S.No.16 of 1987 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Pithapuram

4. Certified copy of E.P.No.11 of 1995 in O.S.No.16 of 1987 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Pithapuram

5. Certified copy of delivery receipt in E.P.No.11 of 1995 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Pithapuram

6. Certified copy of petition filed under Section 146 CPC in E.A.No.106 of 2000 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Pithapuram

and consequently the other two applications, one for reopening

the suit and the other for recalling DW-1 are filed.

10. As can be seen from the defence taken in the written

statement and the documents sought to be filed, it is clear that

the basic documents in support of the defence have not been

filed at all during the course of their trial. There appears to be

no personal negligence of the petitioners for not filing these

documents in evidence. Instead of shutting the doors for the

petitioners to place their evidence, the trial Court could have

given an opportunity to lead evidence for the purpose of

deciding the lis on merits, even by imposing some heavy terms

due to lapses in filing them at appropriate stage. As such, the

revision petitions can be allowed subject to some monetary

terms.