Puli Indiramma, vs J.Chitti Babu,
2023 Latest Caselaw 4717 AP

                                 1


        THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

        C.R.P NoS.1277, 1271, 1325 and 1337 of 2016

COMMON ORDER:

      CRP No.1277 of 2016 is filed by the petitioner against the

order dated 07.01.2016 passed in I.A.No.395 of 2016 on the file of

the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa (for short "the trial

Court") seeking to re-open the suit for the purpose of giving

additional evidence and marking documents.

      CRP No.1271 of 2016 is filed by the petitioner against the

order dated 07.01.2016 passed in I.A.No.397 of 2016 on the file of

the trial Court seeking to recall DW.1 for the purpose of giving

additional evidence and marking of documetns i.e., the certified

copies of Registered Sale deed dated 14.12.1925 and 7.7.1955 and

Certified copy of deposition in CC No.308 of 2015 on the file of

Excise Court, Kadapa.

      CRP No.1325 of 2016 is filed by the petitioner against the

order dated 07.01.2016 passed in I.A.No.396 of 2016 on the file of

the trial Court seeking to recall PW.1 for the purpose of further

cross examination and CRP No.1331          of 2016 is filed by the

petitioner against the order dated 07.01.2016 passed in I.A.No.398

of 2016 on the file of the trial Court seeking to receive the

documents by condoning the delay and mark the same as exhibits

on behalf of the petitioners/defendants.
                                   2


      2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents

herein are the defendants in the suit in O.S No.412 of 2013 on the

file of the trial Court. The defendant No.1 has filed all the present

impugned applications before the trial Court. As the issue involved

in all the civil revision petitions is one and the same, these matters

are taken up together for disposal by this Common Order.

3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner who is 1st

respondent herein stated that recently went to Sub Registrar office,

Kadapa and on enquiry he came to know that the plaint schedule

property was originally purchased by his grandfather Pitchaiah

from one P. Venkata Reddy under a registered sale deed dated

14.12.2015 and subsequently another transaction taken place

under Document No.1416/1955 dated 7.7.2015 among the sons of

J. Pitchaiah. Then he obtained copies of documents on 24.8.2015.

The above documents are very essential to prove his defence.

Apart from that PW.1 gave evidence in CC No.308 of 2015 before

Excise Court, Kadapa and he deposed that his father-in-law

executed gift deed in favour of his wife Indiramma, who is the

plaintiff/petitioner herein with an extent of Ac 0.71 cents in the

year 1985, whereas in the suit the petitioner/plaintiff claims Ac

0.81 cents excess contrary to the evidential fact and he has

obtained certified copy of the above deposition and to mark those

documents and hence the above impugned applications have been

filed by the defendants and the same were allowed by the trial

Court Vide separate orders dated 7.1.2016. Aggrieved by the

same, the present civil revision petitions came to be filed.

4. Heard Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners. On verifying the proceeding sheet, on 23.09.2023,

Sri P. Raja Sekhar, learned counsel representing Sri M. Solomon

Raju, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that they

have given no objection vakalat for the respondents and they have

no instructions.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders

of trial Court are contrary to law. He submits that the trial Court

grossly erred in allowing the applications filed under Section 151

CPC to re-open the suit for the purpose of producing additional

evidence, marking documents i.e., certified copies of Registered

Sale Deed dated 14.12.1925 and 7.7.1955. He further submits that

there is no reference about the registered sale deed dated

14.12.1925 and another transaction dated 7.7.1955 and that there

are no pleadings in the written statement, that the property

originally belonged to grandfather of J.Pitchaiah, unless there is

pleading in the written statement, there cannot be any cross

examination on that aspect, and that in the absence of pleadings in

the written statement the trial court ought to have dismissed the

application. He further submits that after hearing the arguments

of both sides and after filing of written arguments on 14.07.2015

by the petitioner/plaintiff and also the defendants, the suit was

reserved for judgment and at that stage, the defendants filed the

impugned applications.

6. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the

petitioner has placed reliance on a catena of decisions of Andhra

High Court reported in (i) T. Ramachandra Murthy vs K. Rama

Murthy And Ors.1 ; (ii) In a case of D. Mahesh Kumar vs State

Of Telangana2; and (iii) In another case of Smt. K.Ratna Prabha

vs State Of Telangana Rep. By Its Special Standing Counsel3,

and submits that the applications filed for recall and reopening the

suit were dismissed by the Andhra High Court and hence learned

counsel requests this Court the trial Court erroneously allowed

those applications and hence learned counsel requests this Court

to pass appropriate orders by setting aside the impugned orders.

7. On a perusal of the material available on record, this

Court observed that the suit in O.S No.412 of 2013 was filed by the

plaintiff for declaration of right ad title over the schedule property

basing on the Registered Gift Deed executed by J. Venkateswarlu

in favour of the plaintiff, for which the defendant denied about the

execution of gift deed and hence he contested the same and after

AIR 1980 A.P. 265

2010 (1) ALD 163

2009 (3) Alt 236

hearing arguments on both sides, the suit was reserved for

judgment by the trial Court.

8. The main ground is that the 1st defendant did not assign

any reason for his failure to take steps to introduce the document

i.e., Registered sale deed dated 14.12.2015 and subsequently

another transaction taken place under Document No.1416/1955

dated 7.7.2015 and when the suit was heard and judgment was

reserved, the 1st defendant filed those applications before the trial

Court but the trial Court did not consider the objections raised by

the petitioner before it and totally ignored and passed the

impugned orders.

9. Undisputedly the suit was filed in the year 2013 for

declaration of right and title and both the parties went on trial,

adduced evidence and advanced arguments. After the matter was

reserved for judgment, the above Interlocutory applications were

filed. The 1st defendant filed certified copy of transaction under

Registered sale deed dated 14.12.2015 and subsequently another

transaction taken place udner document NO.1416/1955 dated

7.7.2015 and the trial Court received the same by exercising power

udner rule 14(3) of Order VII of CPC on the ground that 1st

defendant obtained certified copies on 24.8.2015 But this ground

cannot be accepted for the reason that there is no pleading in the

written statement that the property originally belongs to

grandfather by name J. Pitchaiah. It is clear that unless there is

pleading int eh written statement there cannot be any corss

examination on that aspect.

10. In a case of Voruganti Narayana Rao v. Bodla

Rammurthy and others4 and the same was affirmed by this Court

in Jai Siha v. Deewan Ranveer Singh and another5, wherein this

Court considered the applications under Rule 1-A or Order VIII of

CPC which is in pari materia with Rule 14(3) of Order VII of CPC

and when no reason was assigned, the courts are not expected to

receive the documents. Therefore in the absence of any foundation

in the pleadings, the documents cannot be received without

assigning any reason for failure in compliance of Rule 14(1)&(2) of

Order VII of CPC.

11. The principle of law declared by the Apex Court that

when the matter was heard and reserved for judgment, there is

nothing to be heard by the Court, the question of hearing further

does not arise. Therefore, based on the law declared in the

judgment, it is difficult to conclude that the 1st defendant is

entitled to claim reopen the case for the purpose of marking

doucmetn and to adduce further evidence. Hence, at this stage,

when the suit was reserved for judgment after hearing, the

evidence cannot be reopened, the petition for reoping the evidence

2011 (6) ALD 142

MANU/AP/3391/2013

of plaintiff cannot be allowed, the trial Court committed an error in

allowing such applications.

12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court deems fit

to allow these revision petitions by setting aside the impguend

orders.

13. Accordingly, all the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed.

The impugned orders dated 7.1.2015 passed in in I.A.No.395, 396,

397 and 398 of 2016 by the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Kadapa are hereby set aside. Further, since the suit pertains to

the year 2013, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as

expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three (03)

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There

shall be no order as to costs.

14. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if

any, shall also stand closed.

                                 ___________________________________
                                 DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
Date:     6 .10.2023.

Gvl



      THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO




      C.R.P NoS.1277, 1271, 1325 and 1337 of 2016

                  Date : 6 .10.2023




Gvl