Common Order vs Principal Junior Civil Judge
2023 Latest Caselaw 4111 AP

       THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

     CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3864, 4613 & 4642 of 2017
                             and
            CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2773 of 2018

COMMON ORDER:


       Plaintiffs in O.S.No.189 of 2011 on the file of learned

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda filed these four Civil

Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.


2.     Respondent herein is the defendant in the suit.

3. The suit before the learned trial Court is for declaration of

title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and for

vacant possession of the same and for removal of the structures

thereon and for eviction of the defendant from the said property

and for costs and such other reliefs. Necessary issues were

settled. Suit went for trial. On behalf of plaintiffs, PWs.1 to 5

were examined. On behalf of defendant, DWs.1 to 3 were

examined. In contesting the claim of the plaintiffs, the

defendant relied on two Wills. One such Will was Ex.B.2. This

Will was said to have been executed by Smt. Yarlagadda Naga

Ratnamma on 10.01.2000. The executant allegedly subscribed

her signature on this Will. Plaintiffs in the suit have been

contesting that the said Will was not executed by that woman

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.3864 of 2017 & batch

and the said Will was a forged and fabricated document.

Plaintiffs' further contention is that Smt. Yarlagadda Naga

Ratnamma, who allegedly executed the Will, was illiterate and

could not have subscribed her signature on the Will and that

she was a marks woman and that the thumb mark and

signature attributed to her on the disputed Will did not belong

to her. It was in this factual backdrop, after conclusion of

evidence on both sides and while the suit was coming up for

hearing arguments on both sides, certain applications were

moved by the plaintiffs and all those applications were

dismissed by the learned trial Court and that forced the

plaintiffs to come to this Court.

4. The revision petitioners who are plaintiffs before the trial

Court had filed I.A.No.873 of 2017 in O.S.No.189 of 2011 under

Order VII Rule 14 C.P.C. seeking for leave of the Court and

permit them to file certain documents. The proposed

documents are pension papers of Smt. Yarlagadda Naga

Ratnamma concerning February, 2003. With a reasoned order

on contest, the learned trial Court dismissed the said

application. Impugning that order dated 25.07.2017,

C.R.P.No.3864 of 2017 is filed.

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.3864 of 2017 & batch

5. The revision petitioners/plaintiffs had filed I.A.No.871 of

2017 in O.S.No.189 of 2011 under Section 151 C.P.C. praying

the Court to reopen the evidence so as to enable them to mark

the above referred documents. By an order dated 25.07.2017

the learned trial Court dismissed it. Assailing that

C.R.P.No.4613 of 2017 is filed.

6. Revision petitioners/plaintiffs had filed I.A.No.872 of 2017

in O.S.No.189 of 2011 under Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking

to recall PW.1 so that they would exhibit the above referred

documents. By an order dated 25.07.2017 the learned trial

Court dismissed that petition. Assailing it, C.R.P.No.4642 of

2017 is filed.

7. Since the suit was coming up for arguments and since the

above revision petitions were filed where an interim stay was

granted for certain time, the learned trial Court on observing

that further orders of stay were not produced before it, it was

directing the parties to get ready for arguments in the suit. In

challenge to that docket order dated 23.04.2018, the plaintiffs

preferred C.R.P.No.2773 of 2018.

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.3864 of 2017 & batch

8. Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, the learned counsel

appearing for revision petitioners and Sri M.Venkata Ramana,

the learned counsel appearing for respondent submitted

arguments.

9. Point that falls for consideration is:

"Whether the impugned orders occasioned

injustice requiring interference under Article

227 of the Constitution of India?"

POINT:

10. From the facts that are narrated in the earlier paragraphs

of this order, the question was whether Smt. Yarlagadda Naga

Ratnamma was a literate or illiterate and whether she was

subscribing her signatures or not and whether she had always

subscribed her thumb impression and never subscribed any

signature. According to the respondent/defendant, by the time

of the disputed Will and earlier to that the said woman was

subscribing her signatures. During the subsequent years

because of the old age she may have been subscribing her

thumb impressions. Revision petitioners as plaintiffs with a

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.3864 of 2017 & batch

view to substantiate their contention that she was always

subscribing only thumb impression intended to file a photostat

copy of acquittance of old age pension disbursed by the

Government. They obtained this photostat copy under the Right

to Information Act issued by Mandal Development Officer on

16.10.2012 on an application dated 06.10.2012 made by the 1st

revision petitioner/1st plaintiff. In acquaintance of receiving the

pension, the said woman allegedly put her thumb impression in

the said register and its photostat copy is made available for

perusal of this Court also.

11. Learned trial Court considered the facts on record and

submissions on both sides and refused to grant permission

stating that it was filed belatedly at the arguments stage and

the copy sought to be furnished does not indicate any

certification or affirmation in proof of the fact that the thumb

impression was really put by Smt. Yarlagadda Naga Ratnamma

and that the document is not admissible in evidence and the

document and its contents have no relevancy to the case. In

that view of the matter, it dismissed all the applications.

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.3864 of 2017 & batch

12. Learned counsel for petitioners cited Levaku Pedda

Reddamma v. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma 1. That

was a case under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of Code of Civil

Procedure. That was a case where defendants in the suit filed

application under Order VIII Rule 1 C.P.C. praying the trial

Court to permit them to produce additional documents. The

trial Court as well as the High Court refused to grant such

permission. Their Lordships after considering the record made

available to their Lordships concluded saying that while the

relevancy of the documents could be considered in the suit,

refusing to allow the application on the ground of some delay

could not be countenanced and accordingly their Lordships

permitted the defendants in the suit to produce those

documents and further permitted both parties to produce

necessary evidence. Be it noted, it is the ratio of a judgment

that is law and that binds every other Court. The cited ruling

laid the law that while considering applications for documents

aspect of delay requires generous consideration.

2022 LiveLaw (SC) 533

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.3864 of 2017 & batch

13. Learned counsel for respondent both before the trial

Court as well as here submitted that in their counter before the

trial Court they specifically pleaded that a mere photostat copy

obtained under the Right to Information Act could not be

admissible in evidence since it is neither original nor certified

copy and despite the specific finding of the trial Court that the

proposed document is inadmissible in evidence, the revision

petitioners have not shown any principle of law enabling them

to file such photostat copy without laying any particular

foundation to lead such secondary evidence. As against this, no

principle of law is cited and argued for the petitioners.

14. On considering all the facts and circumstances and the

rival submissions on both sides, the following aspects are to be

stated:

The petitions filed before the trial Court by these revision

petitioners indicate and the proposed document also indicate

that while the suit was filed in the year 2011, the plaintiffs were

well aware of the facts in dispute in the suit and as to whether

Smt. Yarlagadda Naga Ratnamma was a woman who could

subscribe her signature or was a woman who could not

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.3864 of 2017 & batch

subscribe her signature and was only capable of subscribing

her thumb mark. It is for that reason in the year 2012 itself

they obtained the photostat copy of the pension book by making

an application under the Right to Information Act. Despite the

fact that they obtained it in the year 2012 at the very initial

phases of the trial, they neither exhibited it in their own

evidence nor confronted it to the witnesses on the opposite side

and they sat cool for all the years and after recording of

evidence on both sides was concluded, they had come up with

these applications in the year 2017. The excuse for such delay

is attributed to failure of the earlier lawyer to file them. The

affidavit of the earlier lawyer that such papers were given to him

and that he failed to file them is absent in this case. While the

plaintiffs were entitled to file all the documents and list them

and file it along with plaint, law still permits them to file

documents at a later stage, provided they are able to explain as

to what hindered them from filing them at an earlier phase.

Except offering a lame excuse which does not convince any

Court of rational thinking, there is absolutely no acceptable

reason explaining the delay. It was in such circumstances, the

learned trial Court refused to grant leave in terms of Order VII

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.3864 of 2017 & batch

Rule 14 C.P.C. One cannot find fault with the reasons recorded

by the learned trial Court about the belated application.

15. The Will in Ex.B.2 which is in dispute is of the year 2000.

The proposed document pertains to the year 2002. It is

undisputed that Smt. Yarlagadda Naga Ratnamma is an old

woman and was receiving old age pension also. A gap of two

years between Ex.B.2 and the proposed document, in the life of

an old woman, would certainly make some difference in her

abilities to sign. Simply because two years after Ex.B.2 she was

subscribing her thumb impression cannot be said to be a fact

relevant to consider that during her entire lifetime she was only

subscribing her signature. The oral evidence on both sides

must have been there about Smt. Yarlagadda Naga Ratnamma

and as to whether she was only a marks woman or signatory.

In that view of the matter, the view of the learned trial Court

that the proposed document was irrelevant cannot be said to be

an unreasonable observation. When the trial Court had

considered the facts and reached to a conclusion and offered

adequate reasons to reach to such conclusion, this Court

exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

cannot sit in appeal since the powers conferred under this

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.3864 of 2017 & batch

provision is only to see whether the Courts below have been

conducting themselves in accordance with law or not. Viewed

in this angle, this Court finds no reason to disturb the orders

passed by the trial Court.

Learned counsel for petitioners argued that while granting

leave or refusing to grant leave for documents the relevancy of

documents need not be considered since that question can be

considered when the documents are tendered in evidence. This

submission cannot be said to be incorrect. However, the

petitioners have not only filed petition to condone delay in filing

the documents had also filed petitions for marking them by

recalling PW.1. In such circumstances, the approach of the

learned trial Court in speaking about relevancy of documents

cannot be found fault with. There is no merit in any of the

revision petitions.

16. In the result, C.R.P.No.3864 of 2017 is dismissed

confirming the order dated 25.07.2017 of learned Principal

Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda in I.A.No.873 of 2017 in

O.S.No.189 of 2011.

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.3864 of 2017 & batch

C.R.P.No.4613 of 2017 is dismissed confirming the order

dated 25.07.2017 of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Avanigadda in I.A.No.871 of 2017 in O.S.No.189 of 2011.

C.R.P.No.4642 of 2017 is dismissed confirming the order

dated 25.07.2017 of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Avanigadda in I.A.No.872 of 2017 in O.S.No.189 of 2011.

C.R.P.No.2773 of 2018 is dismissed confirming the docket

order dated 23.04.2018 of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Avanigadda in O.S.No.189 of 2011.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

_____________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 08.09.2023 Ivd

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.3864 of 2017 & batch

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3864, 4613 & 4642 of 2017 and CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2773 of 2018

Date: 08.09.2023

Ivd