D.Jamuna vs Venkiteela Krishnaswamy Naidu
2023 Latest Caselaw 1500 AP

                                   1




       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI


      CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.407 and 409 of 2022

COMMON ORDER:

      Aggrieved by the orders passed in Interlocutory Application

No.416 of 2021 under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151

C.P.C to recall D.W.1 for the purpose of marking judgment in C.C.

No.292 of 2017 and Interlocutory Application No.417 of 2021

under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) read with Section 151 C.P.C to

condone the delay in       filing the certified copy of judgment in

C.C.No.292 of 2017 dated 29.11.2019 on the file of Special

Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of Prohibition & Excise

Offences, Nellore respectively, the present Civil Revision Petitions

are filed by the Revision Petitioner under Article 227 of the

Constitution of Indian.

2.    The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent

herein is the plaintiff in the above said suit.

3. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed a suit vide O.S. No.155

of 2016 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge,

Nellore, SPSR Nellore District for recovery of money. In the said

suit, the defendant filed the present I.A.Nos.416 and 417 of 2021

on the ground that at the time of filing of chief affidavit of

defendant, the copy of Judgment in C.C.292 of 2017 is not

available with him and he obtained certified copy of the Judgment

and after receiving the same, he has been filed ... with the present

applications as the said document is just and necessary to the

present case. To the said application, the respondent/plaintiff

filed counter opposing the said applications. After hearing the

same, the Court below dismissed the said two applications.

Aggrieved by the same, the present Revisions have been filed by

the petitioner.

Heard Sri V.Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner. NO representation on behalf of the respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what

has been stated in the grounds of revision, contended that the

judgment in C.C.No.292 of 2017 has been received by the

petitioner after filing the chief affidavit before the Court below.

After receiving the said judgment, the present application is filed

to receive the said judgment and also to recall D.W.1 for marking

the said document. The Court below, dismissed the said

application solely on the ground of dealy. The learned counsel

has drawn the attention of this Court to the observations so made

by the Court below and submitted that the Court below ought to

have dismissed on the ground of delay and also ought to have

observed that the admissibility of the document at the stage of I.A.

The Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that delay should

not be a ground to decline the production of documents by the

parties. Learned counsel further submitted that no prejudice will

be caused to the respondent/plaintiff the said applications are

allowed. IN fact the Court can impose costs to ..... that the delay

cause some prejudice to the plaintiff, but cannot dismissed solely

on the ground of delay. In so far admissibility of the document in

the present suit, the Court can always decide the same during the

course of trial. He further draws the attention of this Court that

initially this Court granted stay of all further proceedings in the

suit and its order dated.... But the same could not be get

extended which is beyond the control of the petitioner's counsel.

Now the matters have been posted for arguments. He further

submits that if the said document is not taken on file, the

petitioner's right to defend the suit will be affected and the delay

always be compensated by imposing some costs. In support of his

contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in....... He also relied on the judgment of Hon'bnle Apex

Court in Seth Ramdayal Jat v. Laxmi Prasad 1 in para 13 of the

Judgment and accordingly prayed to consider the same.

On perusal of the record, Original Suit NO.155 of 2016

has been filed for recovery of money and in the said suit, the

present I.As have been filed vide I.A.Nos.416 and 417 of 2021

seeking..... After hearing the said applications, the Court below

has dismissed the same on the ground that ... has not extending

the delay in filing the said document before the Court did not

explain the delay properly. The defendant's evidence was closed

on 24.11.2021 and the judgment in C.C.292 of 2017, the said was

was disposed of on 20.09.2019 much prior to the closure of the

defendant's side evidence. The Court below has taken due note of

the dates on which the application was made for obtaining

certified copy of C.C.No.292 of 2017 and about the delivery of the

judgment to the petitioner and came to a conclusion that prior

marking of EXs.B1 to B3 by D.W.1 on 05...20, the judgment in

C.C.No.292 of 2017 is very much delivered to the petitioners

herein. But inspite of it, he has not marked, but filed the present

applications after clouse of defendant's side evidence and as the

(2009) 11 Supreme Court Cases 545

petitioner has not exaplained the delay for not filing the said

judgment in time, the said applications have been dismissed.

The ground on which the plaintiff opposed is that the

plaintiff is not a party to the judgmentin C.C.No.292 of 2017. In

so far as delayis concerned, the judgment relied on by leanred

counsel for the petitioner nodoubt is applicable to the facts of case

where the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that...... In so far as

admissibility of document is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex court

has held that a judgment in Criminal case is admissible for

.......jurisdiction. However, whether the judgment can be looked

into or not .....for the trial Court to decide at the time of judgment

of the suit. The order passed in the impugned proceedings is

contrary to the settled principles of law as the Court below has

dismissed on the ground of delay. As the judgment referred supra,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that rules of

procedure are not made by justice and therefore even if there is

some delay the trial Court should have impose some costs rather

than production of documents itself. Taking the said principle

into consideration, this Court is inclined to set aside the orders

passed in I.A.Nos.416 and 417 of 2021 on a condition that the

petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiff within a

period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of order. If

the petitioner fails to pay the costs within the stipulated time, the

order passed in I.A.... holds good. The Court below is further

directed to fix a particular date and the parties to the suit should

co-operate and get ready for examination of the witnesses.

9. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is

disposed of at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as

to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 17.03.2023 MP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.407 and 409 of 2023

17.03.2023

MP