Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Appala Subrahmanyam vs Karuturi Satyanarayana on 14 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
APHC010385792023
ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3460]
(Special Original
Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1932/2023
Between:
Appala Subrahmanyam ...PETITIONER
AND
Karuturi Satyanarayana and ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M R S SRINIVAS
2
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. M S R SASHI BHUSHAN
The Court made the following:
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2060/2023
Between:
Appala Subrahmanyam ...PETITIONER
AND
Karuturi Satyanarayana and ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2064/2023
Between:
Appaa Subrahmanyam ...PETITIONER
AND
Karuturi Satyanarayana and ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others
3
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
C.R.P.Nos.1932, 2060 and 2064 of 2023
COMMON ORDER:
C.R.P.No.1932 of 2023 is filed against the order dated 24.07.2023 in
I.A.No.1912 of 2021 in O.S.No.143 of 2015 passed by the Principal
District Judge, East Godavari District.
2. C.R.P.No.2060 of 2023 is filed against the order dated
24.07.2023 in I.A.No.1913 of 2021 in O.S.No.143 of 2015 passed by the
Principal District Judge, East Godavari District.
3. C.R.P.No.2064 of 2023 is filed against the order dated
24.07.2023 in I.A.No.997 of 2023 in O.S.No.143 of 2015 passed by the
Principal District Judge, East Godavari District.
4. Brief facts: Petitioner is the plaintiff. The suit was filed for
cancelation of two registered sale deeds dated i.e. (1) sale deed dated
30.11.1988 vide document No.8756/88 executed by an imposter
woman, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and one Tadimeti Kailasa Rao and
(2) sale deed dated 27.08.1993 vide document No.8756/88 executed by
Respondent No.2 in favour of Respondent No.1.
5. The Petitioner filed the above mentioned applications on the
ground that Kuchimanchi Seetharama Lakshmi claimed to be the
vendor of the Respondents under the disputed document had died on
12.07.1986 i.e. much prior to the execution of the disputed sale deed
dated 30.11.1988. The Petitioner in his explanation stated that though
he was aware of the death of the late Kuchimanchi Seetharama
Lakshmi, he could not secure the death certificate. Eventually, the
Petitioner could trace the death certificate in Kandarada Gram
Panchayat, where late Kuchimanchi Seetharama Lakshmi had died.
According to the Petitioner, this document is critical to prove his case
and therefore sought to receive the said document in evidence. The
said applications were rejected by the trial Court. Hence, the present
revision petitions.
6. Heard Sri M.R.S.Srinivas, learned counsel for the Petitioner
and Sri M.S.R Sashibhushan,learned counsel for the Respondents
through virtual mode.
7. Contentions: Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended
that the death certificate being critical document to establish his specific
plea in the plaint that late Kuchimanchi Seetharama Lakshmi was not
alive on the date of execution of sale deed and that the trial Court
should not have rejected the application. The learned counsel for
Respondent contended that there is no foundational pleading and that
the document is not relevant for the purpose of deciding the case.
8. Learned counsel for the Respondents relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bagai Construction
through its Proprietor Lalit Bagai v. Gupta Building Material Store1
and judgments of this Court in G.Sanjeeva Reddy and others v.
Indukuru Lakshmamma and others2 and Ravi Satish v. Edala Durga
Prasad and others3. It is also his contention that on earlier occasion,
the Petitioner filed an application to receive certain documents and the
same was rejected by the trial Court, which was confirmed by this Court
and there cannot be two different yardsticks for the Petitioner and the
Respondents for adducing additional documents.
9. Reasoning: The document that is sought to be marked by the
Petitioner is the death certificate of late Kuchimanchi Seetharama
Lakshmi, who is shown as a vendor in the disputed suit document
dated 30.11.1988. As, It is the specific plea in the plaint that late
Kuchimanchi Seetharama Lakshmi was not alive as on the execution of
the disputed document, the death certificate showing the date of death
as 12.07.1986 which is now sought to be received in evidence appears
to be critical piece of evidence. The document in question being a
(2013) 14 SCC 1
2006 (3) ALT 66
2009 (3) ALT 236
public document and having a likely bearing on the outcome of the suit
itself , this court is of the opinion that the court can accept such
documents even at a belated stage.
10. In the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sugandhi Vs P.Rajkumar4, it washeld that a liberal approach should
be adopted in permitting the additional documents to be brought on
record as the underlying purpose of litigation is the pursuit of truth.
11.A similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Levaku
Pedda Reddamma & Ors Vs Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma5.
The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below;
"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 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.
2020(10) SCC 706
2022 Livelaw (SC) 533
It is well settled that rules of procedure are hand-maid of
justice and, therefore, even if there is some delay, the trial
Court should have imposed some costs rather than to
decline the production of the documents itself. held that the
documents can be received at a belated stage."
11. The contention of the Respondents that different yardsticks
cannot be applied while accepting the additional documents, appears to
be unfounded. In the said applications, the Respondent sought for
amendment to his written statement and was rejected on merits and
confirmed by this court is of no relevance to the facts of this case.
12 In the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this
Court is inclined to allow the revision petitions by setting aside the
impugned orders of the trial Court dated 24.07.2023.
13. The civil revision petitions are therefore allowed. No order as
to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 14.11.2024
KLP
