Siripurapu Nehru vs Sunkuru Kanthamma
2023 Latest Caselaw 806 AP

                          HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

MAIN CASE No: C.R.P.No.2497 of 2022

                      PROCEEDING SHEET

 Sl.                                                                         OFFICE
       DATE                               ORDER
No.                                                                          NOTE.
03   10.02.2023   RC,J
                                   C.R.P.No.2497 of 2022

                          Issue notice to the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice to the respondents by Registered Post with acknowledgment due and file proof of service into the Registry.

Post on 24.02.2023.

________ RC, J I.A.No.1 of 2022

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application to receive Encumbrance Certificate with respect to the plaint schedule property to get it marked by recalling P.W.1 to falsify the version of the defendants that the registered sale deed of the petitioner/ plaintiff is not reflected in the encumbrance certificate. The learned counsel further submitted that the document now proposed to be filed is very much essential to prove the case of the petitioner/plaintiff and that failure to reserve right of adducing evidence is not at all an impediment to receive and mark the document. The Court below erroneously dismissed the said application on the ground that the said petition was filed after closure of the evidence of the respondents/ defendants, without reserving any right to adduce rebuttal evidence. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in "Gullipalli Naram Naidu Vs Kinthali Kumaraswami 1"where in it was held that :

"15. As is well known, procedures are manmade. Procedures should not come in the way of advancement of justice, but should be a facilitator of justice. In this regard, it is apt to refer to some observations made by the apex Court in Bhagwan Swaroop v. Mool Chand, (4) AIR 1983 SC 355, which read as under:

But the law of procedure devised for advancing justice and not impeding the same......... a Code of procedure designed to facilitate justice and further its ends; not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up.

16. It may be reiterated that out of three conditions enjoined under Rule 27 (1) of Order XLI CPC, the first two conditions pertain to non-production of the documents on account of the fact that either such evidence was refused by the trial Court or such evidence was not within the knowledge of the plaintiff or the defendant, as the case may be, despite exercise of due diligence during the pendency of the suit. Even if the two requirements are not satisfied, the appellate Court, notwithstanding the same, as its requirement, can receive the documents. While that be the position, so as to prevent such a contingency, why not the trial Court permit the parties to produce such a document if it is convinced that such a document is required for an effective adjudication of the suit, without driving the parties to resort to the provisions of Rule 27 of Order XLI CPC and relieve the appellate Court of the task of getting such documents as a requirement of the Court. Even otherwise, the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 CPC have been saved, and nothing prevents the Court from receiving the documents in exercise of its inherent power, in the absence of any express prohibition to that effect in the CPC."

He further submits that now the suit is coming up for arguments, and if the suit is decided pending this revision petition, the purpose of filing the revision

AIR 2003 Andhra Pradesh 481 would be defeated and the petitioner would be put to great and irreparable loss and hardship. Hence prayed to stay all further proceedings of the suit pending disposal of this revision petition.

Perused the record.

Taking into consideration the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the grounds raised in the revision, prima facie this Court finds that there is a point for consideration in this Revision Petition and in the meantime if the suit is decided, the purpose of filing this revision petition will be defeated and the right of the petitioner to effectively prosecute his case will be affected. As such this Court is inclined to grant the following interim order: "there shall be stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.1331 of 2010 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, till 10.03.2023."

________ RC, J

Note: Furnish C.C. today.

B/o GRL/ANI