Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
A Venkata Ramudu vs A Madi Reddy on 1 April, 2024
APHC010474802023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3311]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2358/2023
Between:
A Venkata Ramudu and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
A Madi Reddy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. J JANAKIRAMI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. G SRAVAN KUMAR
The Court made the following:
2
CRP No.2358 of 2023
O R D E R:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the order dated 14.07.2023 dismissing
I.A.No.132 of 2023 in O.S.No.206 of 2015 on the file of the Court of II
Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool filed by the plaintiffs under Order VII
Rule 14(3) and Section 151 CPC to receive the original rytuwari pass book
issued by the Tahasildar, Kurnool.
2. The plaintiffs contended that the document sought to be filed could
not be earlier filed as it was misplaced and that since it had been traced in
the house of the younger brother Chinna Rama Krishna who is the third
plaintiff, they sought permission to file the document.
3. The petition was opposed by filing counter of the defendants mainly
stating that the reason given for not filing the document is false and that
the third plaintiff is already a party and, therefore, the document being
given by the third plaintiff recently is improper. It is further contended
that the petitioners had not intentionally filed the document earlier since
particulars of the suit survey number were not recorded in it and now by
interpolation, the particulars were incorporated as is visible to the naked
eye. It is also contended that the petitioners had already filed pass book
and the same was marked as Ex.A.2 which clearly reveals that Akula
Lakshmi Devi owned extent of Ac.0.27 cents only in S.No.72/3 and the same
was also admitted in cross examination, however to fill up the said lacune,
the present document is being filed by incorporating as though it is for
Ac.0.54 cents.
4. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition
observing that the interpolation is apparently visible and PW.1 had also
admitted in the cross examination that entry in Ex.A.2 is only Ac.0.27 cents
and, therefore, the petition is intended only to fill up the lacune in the
case.
5. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition is filed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that at the
juncture of Order VII Rule 14 CPC, the genuineness of the evidence not be
evaluated and that the Court has to examine the relevancy, admissibility
and proof at the time of admission of document in evidence. He further
submitted that the document proposed to be filed is full in agreement with
registered sale deed marked as Ex.A.1. He further submitted that
acceptance of document does not automatically lead to its admission into
evidence and placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Orissa in
Nibedita Pradhan Vs Sanjukta Naak1 at para 4.
7. He further submitted that a Court must adopt lenient approach to
receive a document in evidence and that throwing away evidence on a
technical ground would prevent a party from producing evidence and placed
2006 (1) Orissa LR 607
reliance on the decision of this High Court in Rajah R.V.G.K. Ranga Rao Vs
Nizams Sugars Limited2 at last para of para 3.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the trial Court has rightly appreciated that the document
proposed to be produced contained visible material alteration by
interpolation and, therefore, the same cannot be used to fill up the lacune,
more particularly in view of the evidence already on record under Ex.A.2
and cross examination of PW.1. Therefore, totally supporting the
observations of the trial Court, he requested to dismiss the revision
petition.
9. In Nibedita Pradhan (1 supra), wherein at para 4 held as follows:
"From the prayer made in the petition dated 05.09.2005 before the
Court below, it appears that the petitioner sought for acceptance of the
documents mentioned therein by condoning the delay. Acceptance of a
document does not automatically lead to its admission into evidence.
Documents can be admitted into evidence when the three requirements
namely i) relevancy; ii) admissibility and iii) proof are satisfied. After
receiving a document under Order-8 Rule 1 A(3) of CPC if the Court
feels that it is not relevant in deciding the fact in issue or the relevant
fact, even if it is a public document, the same cannot be taken into
evidence. ..."
10. In Rajah R.V.G.K. Ranga Rao (2 supra), wherein at para 3 held as
follows:
2004(1) ALD 387
"No doubt it is true that the leave to receive the documents need not
be granted very liberally since the very object of introduction of the
Amendment to the Code would be defeated. It is no doubt true that as
per Section 2(1)(v) of Act 30 of 1986 "tractors, motor-cars, motor-
trailers, motor-lorries, motor-cycles, jeeps, scooters, mopeds, trolly-
lines, railway-siding" had been specified. It is pertinent to note that this
is a question touching the merits and demerits of the matter to be
decided on evidence while answering the relevant issues in the main
suit. Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) of the Code specifies "documents which ought
to be produced in the Court by the defendant under this rule but if not
so produced shall not without the leave of the Court be received in
evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit." Act 22 of 2002
introduced the said provision by way of substitution The importance of
the adduction of documentary evidence and reception of documentary
evidence in civil proceedings need not be overemphasized. It is true that
in certain matters there will be deliberate negligence and lack of bona
fides on the parties and at belated stage the documents would be
produced before the Court. To have proper check and also safeguard no
doubt the amending provisions had been introduced. It has to be noticed
that these are all more procedural matters and on the ground of laches
there cannot be shutting of evidence provided the Court is satisfied that
there is some reason for non-production of the documents as specified
and contemplated by the provisions of the Code If reasons are explained
normally the Court may have to lean in favour of receiving the
documents since it is the fundamental principle that the parties should
be permitted to let in all possible evidence which are relevant for the
purpose of adjudicating the matters in controversy before the Court.
Throwing the evidence on a technical ground and preventing a party
producing the evidence, unless it is a deliberate attempt to delay the
matters, normally cannot be permitted. It is a case where the certified
copies of judgment and decree and the relevant C-Books had been
produced. The learned Judge on the ground that a liberal view cannot
be taken to grant leave, had refused the leave. This approach of the
learned Judge, in my considered opinion, especially in the light of the
facts and circumstances of the case, is totally erroneous and
unsustainable. It is also pertinent to note that the Courts are expected
to be more careful and cautious in relation to reception of documents
and instead of driving the parties to approach the revisional Court it is
always better to grant leave and receive the documents permitting the
parties to adduce necessary evidence and to expedite the matters and
dispose of the main proceedings. By making such orders it is needless to
observe that the proceedings will be further delayed. Viewed from any
angle, the orders impugned in these revisions cannot be sustained and
they are hereby set aside."
11. Since the present application is to permit the petitioners to file the
proposed document in evidence, this Court has to see whether such a
permission can be granted or not. Mere granting permission to file a
document does not amount to acceptance of the veracity of the contents of
the document. It is not the stage to go into evaluation of the evidence
sought to be produced through that document. Even if genuineness of a
document is denied by the other side objecting to receive a document in
evidence as forged document, the same cannot be a ground. It is a matter
of appreciation of evidence. Therefore, what is required to be seen is
whether the petitioners could show reason for not filing the same earlier.
Here in the present case, the petitioners contended that it was not traced
earlier and now the third plaintiff has given the same document. Material
alteration by itself does not render a document unbelievable. But, on
appreciation of all facts and circumstances, the genuineness or otherwise of
the entry can be decided. It is open for a party to prove such an entry is
genuine or by the other party that such entry is ingenuine.
12. In the light of the decision Rajah R.V.G.K. Ranga Rao (2 supra),
instead of throwing the evidence on mere technicalities, Court should make
always effort to receive the evidence on record and appreciate the same
and if at all the evidence is found to be concocted, Court is always at
liberty to reject consideration of that evidence. Therefore, instead of
making an observation about the content of the document in the proposed
document, the permission can be given by imposing certain terms for the
delay causing inconvenience to the respondents. It is reiterated that the
respondents are at liberty to contend that the document is not genuine and
that it does not establish the fact which is proposed to be evidenced
through that document, when the turn comes later at the trial. At this
juncture, it is sufficient to permit the document to be filed in evidence,
subject to its proof during the course of the trial. The trial Court also has
to evaluate the document in the light of the settled principles of law of
appreciation of evidence during the course of the trial, but not at this
juncture.
13. In the result, the revision petition is allowed by setting aside the
order dated 14.07.2023 in I.A.No.132 of 2023 in O.S.No.206 of 2015 on the
file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool and the said
petition is allowed on the condition that the petitioners shall pay the
respondents Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) within fifteen (15) days
from the date of this order, failing which the petition shall stand dismissed
without any further order. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Civil Revision petition,
shall stand closed.
_________________
B.S.BHANUMATHI, J
Dt.01-04-2024
Note:
Issue CC by 04.04.2024
B/o
PNV
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2358/2023
Date:01.04.2024
Pnv
