Vandanau Anumndla Rajamani ... vs Yedamakanti Jyothi Rani
2021 Latest Caselaw 2315 Tel

             HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

    CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.630 AND 632 OF 2021

                       Date: 10.08.2021


CRP No.630 of 2021:

Between:

Vandanapu @ Anumndla Rajamani @ Rajeshwari,
s/o. Srinivas, Aged about 36 years, occu: Household,
r/o. Kannegundla village, Dornakal Mandal,
Mahabubabad district.

                                                       .....Petitioner/
                                                       5th defendant

     And

1.Yedamakanti Jyothi Rani w/o. Srinivas Rao,
Aged about 50 years, occu: Housewife,
r/o. Dornakal village and mandal,
Mahabubabad district
                                           .....Respondent/plaintiff

2. Vandanapu Venkat Rao (died)

3. Vemulapalli Vijayalaxmi

4. Soma Dhanalaxmi

5. Kalakota Vanisree

6. Avudoddi Pullaiah

7. Badavath Samya (respondents 2 to 7 are not necessary parties to this revision) .... Respondents/plaintiff

The Court made the following:

PNR,J CRP Nos.630 & 632 of 2021

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.630 AND 632 OF 2021

COMMON ORDER:

Heard Mr. M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner

and Mr. V.Rohith learned counsel for respondent no.1 in both the

revision petitions.

2. Revision petitioner is the 5th defendant in O.S.No.163 of

2012 pending in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad.

First respondent is plaintiff. Parties are referred to as arrayed in

the suit.

3. Plaintiff instituted O.S.No.163 of 2012 in the Court of Senior

Civil Judge at Mahabubabad praying to grant preliminary decree

holding that plaintiff and defendant nos.2 to 5 are entitled to 1/5th

share each in the suit schedule 'A' property and to appoint

Advocate-Commissioner to divide suit schedule property at the rate

of 1/5th share each. Plaintiff filed I.A.No.103 of 2020 under

Section 151 C.P.C. praying to grant leave and permit the plaintiff

to file additional chief-affidavit of P.W.1. Plaintiff also filed

I.A.No.102 of 2020 under Order VII Rule 14 (1) and (3) read with

Section 151 of C.P.C., praying to condone the delay in filing the list

of documents. By orders dated 18.03.2021, Court below allowed

I.A.Nos.102 and 103 of 2020.

4. Learned counsel for 5th defendant Mr. Damodar Reddy

submitted that when the suit was instituted in the year 2012,

plaintiff claimed that suit scheduled properties are the joint family

properties of her father and sought for partition. This claim of the

plaintiff was opposed by the 5th defendant. 5th defendant filed PNR,J CRP Nos.630 & 632 of 2021

written statement asserting that suit schedule properties are not

joint family properties, but are the properties belonging to father of

the plaintiff. He therefore submitted that all along it was a specific

case that suit schedule properties are not joint family properties,

but properties belong to father of the plaintiff. Therefore, after

completion of evidence of plaintiff, at the stage of cross-

examination, plaintiff cannot seek to bring additional evidence

contrary to her consistent stand.

5. He further submitted that it is settled principle of law that

plaintiff has to furnish list of documents, on which reliance is

placed when suit was instituted and should be marked during the

course of recording of evidence of plaintiff. Plaintiff could not have

kept quiet all along, allow the completion of evidence of plaintiff

and when matter is coming up for cross-examination of the

plaintiff, she could not have filed these petitions. Such course is

not permissible, is contrary to Order VII Rule 14 of CPC and in

violation of principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court and this Court. These petitions are filed only to drag on the

suit and protract the litigation. In support of his contention,

learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in

Uppu Hymavathi Mahila Sangam, rep.by its President

M.Anjana Devi and others vs. Sri Vidyaniketan Public School,

rep.by its Correspondent, Anakapalle and others1.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that there

is no change in the stand of plaintiff. What is sought to be

presented is only the extracts of the revenue records to establish

2018 (2) ALT 26 PNR,J CRP Nos.630 & 632 of 2021

how the entries reflected the status of suit schedule land and they

are public documents. There is no absolute bar to present the

additional evidence. In the interest of justice and for proper

adjudication, additional evidence can be presented at any time of

the trial. He would submit that the discretion was validly

exercised by the trial Court and, therefore, no case is made out for

interference of this Court in revisional jurisdiction. He further

submitted that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner by

reopening the evidence of the plaintiff to present additional

evidence.

7. A party to a suit should present his evidence at the earliest

point of time. That being so, it has become routine for parties to

introduce additional evidence during various stages of the suit.

Filing petition after petition by parties to the litigation on one plea

or the other is the major impediment in disposal of civil cases

expeditiously. In order to curb the practice of parties producing

additional evidence at any stage of the suit proceedings resulting in

protracting the litigation causing inordinate delay in conclusion of

the cases in the civil Courts, Order VII Rule 14 CPC was amended

by Act 46 of 1999. Sub-Rule (1) mandates, plaintiff to furnish the

list of documents on which reliance is placed by him, to produce

the same in the Court when the plaint is presented and shall

deliver the documents and copies thereof to be filed with the plaint.

Sub-Rule (2) requires that if a document is not in possession or

power of the plaintiff, he should state in whose possession and

power the said document is available. Sub-Rule (3) carves out an

exception to Sub-Rules (1) and (2) and enables plaintiffs to file

additional evidence which was not shown in the list of documents PNR,J CRP Nos.630 & 632 of 2021

filed along with the plaint. Sub-Rule (3) vests discretion in the trial

Court to permit additional evidence which could not be filed along

with the plaint.

8. Having regard to the scheme of CPC, the plaintiff has to seek

leave of the Court to present additional evidence which was not

shown in the list of documents filed along with the plaint and/or

shown but documents were not filed as they were not in his

possession/unavailable/could not be discovered. He must also

explain relevancy of those documents. Thus, presentation of

additional evidence after the plaint was filed is not a matter of

course. Only on satisfaction of the reasons assigned and on

consideration of the relevancy of the documents, the trial Court

may exercise its discretion to permit presentation of the additional

documents. Satisfaction of the Court to accept the plea of plaintiff

to present additional evidence at a later stage depends on the facts

of the case, the nature of documents sought to be presented,

reasons assigned, genuineness of the claim and the stage of the

suit. The trial Court is required to assess the bona fides of the

claim and whether such additional evidence would aid in proper

adjudication of the suit claim while exercising its discretion.

Similar provision is incorporated in Order VIII Rule 1-A of CPC

with reference to defendant's plea.

9. Amendments carried out to Order VII of CPC are intended to

curb the tendency of filing documents after plaint was filed and to

discipline the parties. The scope of amended Order VII Rule 14 of

CPC and the discretion vested in the civil Court was subject of PNR,J CRP Nos.630 & 632 of 2021

debate and decision in plethora of precedents. Sufficient to note

few of land mark decisions as under.

9.1. It is no doubt true that, 'Procedural law not to be a tyrant but

a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural

prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant,

not a resistant in the administration of justice' (Shaikh Salim Haji

Abdul Khayumsab Vs. Kumar and others2- paragraph-14).

However, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph-

13, 'no person has a vested right in any course of procedure. He

has only the right of prosecution or defence in the manner for the

time being by or for the court in which the case is pending, and if, by

an Act of Parliament the mode of procedure is altered, he has no

other right than to proceed according to the altered mode." (see Blyth

Vs.Blyth (1996) 1 All ER 524)'.

9.2. In BAGAI CONSTRUCTION Vs GUPTA BUILDING

MATERIAL STORE3, the Trial Court rejected the applications filed

under Order VII/Rule14 read with Section 151 of CPC and

Order 18/Rule 17 of CPC. In the revision, the High Court reversed

the decision of the Trial Court. On appeal Supreme Court upheld

the decision of the Trial Court. Supreme Court observed as under:

"15. After change of various provisions by way of amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure, it is desirable that the recording of evidence should be continuous and followed by arguments and decision thereon within a reasonable time. This Court has repeatedly held that courts should constantly endeavour to follow such a time schedule. If the same is not followed, the purpose of amending several provisions in the Code would get defeated. In fact, applications for adjournments, reopening and recalling are interim measures, could be as far as possible avoided and only in compelling and acceptable reasons, those applications are to be considered......" (emphasis supplied)

(2006) 1 SCC 46

(2013) 14 SCC 1 PNR,J CRP Nos.630 & 632 of 2021

9.3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also considered the decision in

K.K.Velusamy v. N.Palanisamy4. In K.K.Velusamy, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court observed as under:

"15. ....... The need for the court to act in a manner to achieve the ends of justice (subject to the need to comply with the law) does not end when arguments are heard and judgment is reserved. If there is abuse of the process of the court, or if interests of justice require the court to do something or take note of something, the discretion to do those things does not disappear merely because the arguments are heard, either fully or partly."

9.4. As held in Voruganti Narayaan Rao vs. Bodla

Rammurthy and others5, unless reasons assigned show sufficient

cause Court should not permit presentation of additional evidence.

As held in Ravi Satish vs. Edala Durga Prasad6 case grant of leave

by the Court is not for mere asking and Court is not acting like a

post-office.

9.5. The scope of power of trial Court in resorting to provision

under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC was

considered by the Supreme Court in K.K.Velusamy. Supreme

Court observed that though Order XVIII Rule 17 enables the Court,

at any stage of the suit, to recall any witness, who was already

examined and to put such question as it thinks fit, but should be

exercised sparingly, in appropriate cases, to meet the ends of

justice, should not be allowed to be used to abuse process of law

and to protract the litigation.

9.6. Supreme Court has delineated various issues that require

consideration in exercise of power under section 151 CPC.

Supreme Court cautioned that provision under section 151 CPC

(2011) 11 SCC 275

2011 (6) ALD 142

2009 (3) ALT 236 PNR,J CRP Nos.630 & 632 of 2021

cannot be routinely invoked for reopening the evidence or recalling

the witnesses and should be used only to secure the ends of justice

and to prevent abuse of its process; that the availability of power

under Section 151 CPC is coextensive and may be used where the

remedy or procedure is not provided in CPC. It is complementary.

Since no guidelines are prescribed in CPC, such power should be

resorted to sparingly and in exercise of sound discretion and the

wisdom of the Court and in given facts and circumstances of the

case, which would have to be used with circumspection and care.

It is not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of

a witness who was already examined.

9.7. Supreme Court further observed as under:

"14 ........ But if there is a time gap between the completion of evidence and hearing of the arguments, for whatsoever reason, and if in that interregnum, a party comes across some evidence which he could not lay his hands on earlier, or some evidence in regard to the conduct or action of the other party comes into existence, the court may in exercise of its inherent power under Section 151 of the Code, permit the production of such evidence if it is relevant and necessary in the interest of justice, subject to such terms as the court may deem fit to impose."

10. The principle deducible from these decisions is, discretionary

power vested in Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC or

independently under Section 151 should be exercised sparingly

and such applications should be accepted only for compelling

reasons and on sufficient justification being shown, overarching

consideration being to do substantial justice inter parties. The

bona fides of the party which seek to introduce additional evidence

should be considered and cannot be allowed in a routine manner.

11. It has to be remembered that mere non-mention of the

documents in the plaint or subsequent incidental or supplemental PNR,J CRP Nos.630 & 632 of 2021

proceedings in the suit does not in any manner affect the power of

the Court to grant leave to produce additional evidence at the

subsequent stage. Non-mentioning of the documents initial, which

are sought to be produced at the subsequent stage, is a curable

defect. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court

consistently cautioning the trial Courts not to adopt unduly liberal

approach in such matters. Thus, while considering the application

to present additional evidence the Court must exercise sound

discretion keeping in mind the requirement to elicit truth and to

render substantial justice between the parties.

12. The suit is at the stage of cross-examination of P.W.1. The

documents sought to be presented are extracts from the revenue

records. They only reflect the entries in revenue records.

Production of these documents does not impinge upon in any

manner right of defence of defendants. Defendants can always call

upon the plaintiff to prove the genuineness of the documents.

13. In the facts of these cases, I do not see any error in

exercising discretion by the Court below accepting the plea of

petitioner/plaintiff. Civil Revision Petitions fail. They are

accordingly dismissed. It is needless to observe that the

presentation of additional evidence is subject to relevancy and

admissibility of the documents. Pending miscellaneous petitions if

any shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 10.08.2021 Kkm PNR,J CRP Nos.630 & 632 of 2021

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.630 & 632 OF 2021

Date: 10.08.2021 kkm