K.Venkata Dinesh Reddy vs K Hussain Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 7103 AP

               THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

              CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.279, 463 & 468 OF 2020



COMMON ORDER:

       These three Revision Petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, are filed by the unsuccessful petitioners - plaintiffs, having been

aggrieved by the common order, dated 02.12.2019, on the file of Junior Civil

Judge, Nandikotkur, passed in IA.Nos. 434, 435 and 436 of 2018 in OS.No.70

of 2012 filed under Section 151 of CPC to reopen the evidence of plaintiffs in

OS.No.70/2012, under order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC to recall PW1 for marking

certain documents and under order VII Rule 14(1) CPC to receive the

following documents respectively:

       i.   Original pattadar pass books of the petitioners-plaintiffs bearing

            patta No.1545 issued by Tahsildar, Jupadubunglow Mandal,

       ii. Original pattadar passbooks of the petitioners - plaintiffs bearing

            patta 325 issued by Tahsildar, Nandikotkur.


2.     Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioners.


3.     No representation for the respondents. A memo has been filed

reporting that the 2nd respondent died and the 1st respondent is the only legal

representative and is already on record.

4. As all the three applications are based on the same grounds, but for

different reliefs, the revision petitions are disposed of together.

5. The revision petitioners are the petitioners-plaintiffs. The petitioners

are minors and have been represented by their mother as guardian. First of

all the suit is filed for permanent injunction in respect of the three items of the

property shown in the plaint schedule. The petitioners have filed pattadar

pass book relating to item No.2 along with the plaint as document No.2 in the

list. Now the petitioners proposed to file the original pattadar pass books

issued in the year 2014 in respect of items 1 and 3 of the plaint schedule.

They contended that they could not file these original documents when the

suit was filed as they were issued subsequent to filing of the suit and further

the photostat copies were filed by them along with their counter in I.A.No.438

of 2016 filed by the defendants to receive their documents and that there are

no willful latches on their part in not filing them before.

6. These petitions were opposed by the respondents by filing counter

stating that the property belongs to K.Srinivasa Reddy and the grandfather of

the petitioners does not have right to gift way the property and therefore the

pattadar passbooks are not valid.

7. It is not the stage to decide the validity of documents or passing of right

to the petitioners. What is now to be seen is whether they are relevant for the

purpose of adjudicating the matter in issue. It is not the case of the

respondent that they do not pertain to the suit schedule properties. Admittedly

these documents came into existence subsequent to filing of the suit. Of

course, the petitioners could have filed them earlier as soon as they were

issued. The petitioners are minors and are being represented by their mother.

Though the photostat copies were filed previously, even by then they have not

produced their originals. Thus, it appears that they have not been diligent

enough to adhere to the procedural requirements, but the fact remains that

they are essential documents for adjudication of the dispute.

8. Therefore, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted

that while strictly adhering to the procedure aspect to show the delay, the

substantial rights of the parties cannot be put at stake and both must be

delicately balanced. He further submitted that the procedural law is handmaid

of justice and not meant to thwart the substantial rights of the parties. In

support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme

Court Sugandhi (dead) by legal representatives and another vs.

P.Rajkumar represented by his power agent Imam Oli (2020) 10 Supreme

Court Cases 706 at para 8 and 9 held as follows:

8. Sub-rule (3), as quoted above, provides a second opportunity to the defendant to produce the documents which ought to have been produced in the court along with the written statement, with the leave of the court. The discretion conferred upon the court to grant such leave is to be exercised judiciously. While there is no straightjacket formula, this leave can be granted by the court on a good cause being shown by the defendant.

9. It is often said that 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).

9. He further placed the decision of the High Court of A.P in Axene

Evangelical Mission, rep. by its Chairman, Konakalla Sudarshana Rao

Vs. Konakalla Jacob Raju and others 2020 (3) ALD 282, wherein the

decision of this High Court in Bada Bodaiah Vs., Bada Lingaswamy 2003

(1) ALD 790 was referred as follows:

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in Bada Bodaiah v/s Bada Lingaswamy, wherein this Court observed in para-13 as follows:

"13. A reading of Rule 1 of Order XIII alone would show that the Court shall receive the documents produced on or before the settlement of issues if the copies thereof have been filed along with the plaint or written statement. The Court has no power to receive the documents produced subsequently. Further, Sub-rule(3) of Rule 14 of Order VII empowers the Court to give permission or leave to the plaintiff to produce documents at a subsequent stage of hearing of the suit. Order XIII Rule 1 and Order VII Rule 14(3) have to be read together harmoniously. Reading together would lead that if the plaintiff applies for permission or leave to produce documents to be received in evidence at the hearing of the suit which documents were not produced on or before settlement of the issues or at the time of production of the plaint, the Court has to exercise sound discretion having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. Mere non-mention of the documents in the plaint or subsequent incidental or supplemental proceedings in the suit does not in any manner affect the power of the Court to grant leave to produce the documents at the subsequent stage. Non- mentioning of the documents sought to be produced at the subsequent stage is a curable defect. With leave of Court, which is condition precedent under Sub-rule(3) of Rule 4 of Order VII read with Sub-rule(1) of Order 13 to receive the documents, documents can be produced at the time of trial. But Order VII Rule 14(3) being an exception to the rule in Order VII Rule 14(1) as well as Order XII Rule 1(1)(2), the power to grant must be exercised in rare cases and not in a routine manner."

10. The learned counsel further placed the reliance of the decision of this

High Court in M.R.Anjaneyulu Vs., R.Subrahmanyam Achary 2012 (5) ALD

243, wherein it is held at paras 5 and 6 as follows:

Under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC'), a document, which ought to be produced in the Court by the defendant, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence.

Clause (3) of Order VIII Rule 1A CPC was incorporated by Act 22 of 2002 with a view to discourage the practice of the parties filing documents at a belated stage of the proceedings. The law is well settled that procedure is handmaid of justice. While procedural laws need to be adhered to in order to avoid long delays in disposal of the cases, at the same time, the Courts will have to make a delicate balance between strict adherence to these procedural laws and the substantial justice that needs to be ensured for the parties. In the anxiety to curb delays, stopping the parties from adducing relevant evidence would lead to failure of justice. However, fair amount of discretion is vested by Order VIII Rule 1A (3) CPC in the Courts to permit filing the documents. No hard and fast principles can be laid down for the Courts as to how this discretion has to be exercised. While exercising such discretion, the Courts will have to consider relevant aspects such as the conduct of the parties, the nature of the documents that are sought to be filed and whether by permitting filing such documents, the same will help the Court to adjudicate the suit in a more effective manner etc. The Court should also consider the stage at which the documents are sought to be filed.

11. By placing reliance on the decision of this High Court in between

Batche Jagadeesh Kumar Vs., Mogali Venkanna Swamy (died) and

others 2019 (5) ALT 284, the trial Court noted that no matter shall be

reopened at the stage of arguments, unless and until they are compelling

suitable reasons to do so and therefore, unless, there is any strong reason is

pleaded and proved to the satisfaction of the Court, it is not desirable to

reopen the evidence, basing on such request, for reopening the matters at the

stage of orders to get the matter further delayed. The trial Court recorded that

the petitioners have earlier made attempt to reopen the suit for evidence of

further cross examination of DW1, but, as the attempts could not be fruitful,

the revision was preferred and the same was pending and it appears that the

object of the petitioners to file application is only to drag on the proceedings.

It is further observed that the petitioners could have filed these documents at

an early stage as they were issued in the year 2014 and the petitioners were

aware of the same much prior to filing of the present petition. Since these

applications were filed at the stage of arguments, the trial Court went heavily

against the petitioners with the above observations and dismissed the petition.

12. As can be seen from the above decisions, it is always required to make

a balance between the necessity to adhere to the procedural laws to curb

delays or mischief on one hand and the interest of parties and to adjudicate

the matter on merits on the other hand to resolve the real issue involved in the

case. As this Court can see from the record, there appears no deliberate

attempt on the part of the petitioners to delay in filing the petition. Therefore,

a fair opportunity can be given to file these documents, however, to remedy

the inconvenience caused to the respondents, some terms can be imposed on

the petitioners, while granting to leave to file the documents and consequently

reopen the evidence and recall PW1.

13. In the result, these three Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the

common order dated 02.12.2019 in IA.Nos. 434, 435 and 436 of 2018 in

OS.No.70 of 2012 respectively on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, is

set aside, on the condition that the revision petitioners shall pay Rs.5,000/- to

the respondents on or before 10.10.2022, failing which, the petitions stand

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J

16th day of September, 2022 sj

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.279, 463 & 468 OF 2020

16th day of September, 2022 sj