Panthula Vijaya Lakshmi vs Pagidipala Yellamma Kalakati Yellamma
2024 Latest Caselaw 670 AP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 670 AP
Judgement Date : 24 January, 2024

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Panthula Vijaya Lakshmi vs Pagidipala Yellamma Kalakati Yellamma on 24 January, 2024

Author: K. Sreenivasa Reddy

Bench: K. Sreenivasa Reddy

   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

        CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1205 OF 2023

 ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order,

dated 10.02.2023 passed in I.A.No.22 of 2023 in O.S.No.41 of

2014 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet, whereby

petition filed to receive the documents for marking as exhibits

on behalf of the petitioner/defendant was dismissed by the Court

below.

2. O.S. No. 41 of 2014 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge,

Rajampet was filed seeking permanent injunction. Pending the

suit, the present I.A. came to be filed to receive certain

documents pertaining to the year 2014 on behalf of the

defendant for the purpose of marking as Exs. B1 to B4.

According to the petitioner/defendant, the said documents were

received by her at a belated stage due to which, the

petitioner/defendant could not file at the time of filing of written

statement and the said documents are utmost important and

necessary to prove the case. Hence it is necessary to mark the

said documents in the suit. It is further stated by the

petitioner/defendant that the additional documents were filed by

her in C.M.A.No.1 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional

District Court, Kadapa at Rajampet wherein directions were

given to file the said documents during the course of trial. In

view of the said reasons, the present I.A. has been filed on the

ground that if the documents have not been marked, it would be

a serious prejudice and cause irreparable loss to the petitioner/

defendant.

3. On the other hand, a counter came to be filed stating that

in spite of having the documents in the custody of the petitioner

at the time of filing of written statement, she failed to file the

same. In fact, the petitioner cross examined the respondent

pertaining to the documents filed by the petitioner. Certified

copy of decree in O.S.No.69 of 2014 is not related to the present

suit and further the aforesaid documents have not been obtained

from the competent authority and the same cannot be looked

into.

4. Heard both sides.

5. The suit is filed seeking permanent injunction. The documents

now sought to be received, were not filed along with written

statement. Therefore, the I.A. has been filed in the trial Court

seeking leave of the Court for receiving the said documents on

behalf of the petitioner/defendant. The suit is of the year 2014.

There are absolutely no reasons given by the petitioner as to why

so much delay had taken place. Further, it is also not stated as to

in what way said documents were relevant to the present suit.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied

upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Levaku Pedda Reddamma & Ors Vs. Gottumukkala

Venkata Subbamma & Anr1 wherein, paragraph Nos.1 and 2

it is held as follows:

"The defendant Nos.2 to 5 are in appeal aggrieved against the order passed by the High Court affirming the order passed by the trial Court refusing to permit the appellant to produce additional documents in terms of order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

We find that the trial Court as well as the High Court have gravely erred in law in not permitting the defendants to produce documents, the relevance of which can be examined by the trial Court on the basis

2022 Live law (SC) 533

of the evidence to be led, but to deprive a party to the suit not to file documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of

the aforesaid judgment, merely because there is delay, the

petitioner would not be deprived of, from producing the

documents before the Court.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents relied on the judgment in the case of

U. Venkatramma Vs. V.Ravinder Reddy2 wherein, it was held

as under:

"In the above matter, it was observed that a party who is negligent in filing the documents which are required to be filed with the plaint/written statement, cannot seek such indulgence without showing sufficient cause. Accordingly, the dismissal of the trial Court was confirmed in the above revision."

8. The party seeking indulgence of the Court to receive documents

which are not required to be filed along with the respective

pleading viz. plaint/written statement, has to show sufficient

cause for not filing the documents at the earliest point of time. It

is essential for the petitioner herein to show as to how the

2019 (5) ALD 210

documents are relevant to the present suit. In the absence of the

same, the alien documents cannot be produced before the Court.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied

upon the written statement and submitted an explanation to the

extent that the documents are relevant to the present case.

However, it is essential for the petitioner herein to file I.A.