Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Padala Venkata Rama Reddy vs Syed Ahmed Ali Shah on 15 November, 2024
APHC010565432023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3311]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2898,
N 2980 & 2982/2023
/2023
Between:
Padala Venkata Rama Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Syed Ahmed Ali Shah and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. N SIVA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.None
The Court made the following:
2
BSB, J
C.R.P.Nos.2898, 2980 & 2982 of 2023
COMMON ORDER:
These revisions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are
preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiffs challenging the common order,
dated 30.10.2023, dismissing I.A.Nos.590 of 2023, 591 of 2023 and 592
of 2023 in O.S.No.221 of 2015 on the file of the Court of I Additional
District Judge, East Godavari, at Rajamahendravaram.
2. Heard Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the revision
petitioners/plaintiffs. In spite of service of notice on the respondents/
defendants, no appearance has been made.
3. I.A.No.590 of 2023 is filed under Section 151 CPC to reopen the
suit for further evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs; I.A.No.591 of 2023 is
filed under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC and Section 151 CPC to recall PW1
for the purpose of marking certified copies of suit register extracts
relating to the suits filed by them against the defendants; I.A.No.592 of
2023 is filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC and Section 151 CPC to
receive the petition listed documents by condoning the delay.
4. The case of the revision petitioners/plaintiffs in support of their
case, briefly stated, is as follows:
(a) The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that the transfer of item
No.I of the plaint schedule property by the defendants 1 to 5 in favour of
BSB, J
C.R.P.Nos.2898, 2980 & 2982 of 2023
6th defendant and item No.II in favour of the 7th defendant, as per
registered sale deeds, dated 29.12.2012, and transfer of items III to V
by defendants 1 to 4 in favour of defendants 6 to 8 respectively as per
registered sale deed, dated 12.03.2015, were made to defeat the debts
due to the plaintiffs and the other creditors, by the defendants 1 to 4 and
defraud the creditors of defendants 1 to 4 and consequently the
plaintiffs and other creditors of defendants 1 to 4 are entitled to recover
the amounts due to them from the schedule property. In the suit, the 2nd
plaintiff was examined as PW1 and the 5th plaintiff was examined as
PW2, the 3rd defendant was examined as DW1 and the chief affidavit of
6th defendant was filed as DW2 and the suit is posted for cross-
examination of DW2.
b. The suit filed by the 1st petitioner against the respondents 1 to 4
in O.S.No.259 of 2014 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of
Offences under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-Cum-X Additional District Judge,
Rajamahendravaram, was decreed on merits on 27.07.2018. The suit
filed by the 2nd petitioner in O.S.No.834 of 2014 on the file of the Senior
Civil Judge's Court, Ramachandrapuram, was decreed ex parte on
17.03.2015. The suit filed by the 3rd petitioner in O.S.No.749 of 2014 on
the file of the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Ramachandrapuram, was
decreed ex parte on 18.02.2014. The suit filed by the 4th petitioner in
BSB, J
C.R.P.Nos.2898, 2980 & 2982 of 2023
O.S.No.187 of 2014 on the file of I Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Rajamahendravaram, was decreed on merits on 03.01.2017. The suit
filed by the 5th petitioner in O.S.No.612 of 2014 on the file of the Senior
Civil Judge's Court, Ramachandrapuram, was decreed on merits on
23.02.2017. The suit filed by the 6th petitioner in O.S.No.624 of 2014 on
the file of the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Ramachandrapuram, was
decreed ex parte on 11.03.2015. The certified copies of the decrees
passed in their favour were marked as exhibits A11 to A16 respectively.
C. No appeals were filed by respondents 1 to 4 against the decrees
& judgments passed in their favour in the suits filed by the plaintiffs
against the defendants and they have become final. However, in the
cross-examination of PW1, due to inadvertence, he stated that appeals
were filed by the respondents 1 to 4 against the decrees & judgments
passed in their suits. DW1, in his cross-examination, denied the
suggestion that respondents 1 to 4 did not prefer any appeals against
the decrees & judgments in the suits filed by the plaintiffs. In order to
substantiate their contention that the respondents 1 to 4 did not prefer
any appeals, the plaintiffs filed an application to receive the certified
copies of the suit register extracts relating to the above six (6) suits filed
by them. There are no laches much less willful laches on the part of the
plaintiffs in not filing this application earlier.
BSB, J
C.R.P.Nos.2898, 2980 & 2982 of 2023
d. In the above facts and circumstances, the plaintiffs filed these
applications to reopen the suit, recall PW1 and to receive the
documents.
5. The respondents/defendants 1 to 5 filed counter denying the
petition averments and stating that the petitions are not maintainable
either in law or on facts. The plaintiffs admitted in their evidence that
the defendants filed appeals and that by the said admission itself, these
petitions are not maintainable and are liable to be dismissed.
6. The respondents 6 & 7 adopted the counter of respondents No.
1 to 5.
7. The learned Additional District Judge, by the common order,
impugned in these revisions, dismissed the applications holding that the
petitioners, in order to cover their laches crept in the cross-examination
of PW1, came up with the present applications which is not permissible
under law and that there are no merits in the petitions.
8. The aggrieved plaintiffs preferred these revisions.
9. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the
documents sought to be received in evidence are useful for effective
adjudication of the lis and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
BSB, J
C.R.P.Nos.2898, 2980 & 2982 of 2023
10. Order VII Rule 14 CPC reads as under:
"14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies
(1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon
document in his possession or power in support of his claim,
he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in
court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the
same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be
filed with the plaint.
(2) Where any such documents not in the possession or
power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in
whose possession or power it is.
(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the
plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the
list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or
entered accordingly, shall not without the leave of the Court,
be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the
suit.
(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for
the cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed
over to a witness merely to refresh his memory."
11. As per sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 CPC, the document which ought to
be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to
be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint, but is not
produced or entered accordingly, shall not without the leave of the
Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.
BSB, J
C.R.P.Nos.2898, 2980 & 2982 of 2023
As per sub-rule (3), the Court may grant leave to receive those
documents in evidence, which were not filed along with the plaint or not
entered in the list of documents. It is settled in law that Rule 14 (3) CPC
saves the power of the Court to grant leave to produce such document
at a later stage. The Court has a wide discretion to allow production of
documents at a later stage having regard to the facts and
circumstances of each case.
12. The petitioners herein intend to file the certified copies of the suit
register extracts mentioned above in order to establish that there was
no appeal preferred as deposed in the oral evidence, either admitting or
denying filing of the appeal(s). However, merely basing on such
evidence, the trial Court dismissed the petition without noticing that the
authenticated suit register would duly prove the fact in dispute rather
than basing on inconsistent oral evidence of both parties. As such, it is
a fit case to allow the petition as the trial Court failed to exercise its
jurisdiction where it ought to.
13. Accordingly, the petitioners are permitted to file the certified
copies of the suit register extracts above mentioned. Consequently,
I.A.Nos.590 of 2023 and 591 of 2023 to reopen the suit and to recall
PW1 for the purpose of marking the aforesaid documents shall also be
allowed.
BSB, J
C.R.P.Nos.2898, 2980 & 2982 of 2023
14. In the result, all these revision petitions are allowed setting aside
the common order, dated 30.10.2023, passed by the learned I
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram, in
I.A.Nos.590 of 2023, 591 of 2023 and 592 of 2023 in O.S.No.221 of
2015 and allowing the said applications.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
B.S.BHANUMATHI, J
15.11.2024
RAR
