Telangana High Court
Gajula Sirisha vs Gajula Indira Devi on 3 December, 2021
Bench: A.Venkateshwara Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY
C.R.P.Nos.793, 829 and 830 of 2020
COMMON ORDER:
Since all these civil revision petitions arise out of the common
order dated 20.02.2020, they are being disposed of by this common
order.
2. These civil revision petitions are directed against the common
order passed in I.A.Nos.110, 111 and 112 of 2020 in O.S.No.160 of
2013 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Khammam,
dated 20.02.2020, filed by the petitioner/defendant No.3 under
Section 151 C.P.C., to re-open the evidence of D.W.1 for marking of
documents as exhibits; to recall the evidence of D.W.1 for marking of
documents as exhibits; and under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC to
receive the enlisted documents on record to mark the same as
exhibits. All these applications were dismissed through common
order dated 20.02.2020. Relevant Paragraph No.10 of the order is
extracted as under;
"Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, the
petitioner has filed present applications mainly to receive the Parikath
(Partition deed) dated 30.11.1961 and as contended by the respondent
No.1/plaintiff and the respondent No.3/defendant No.2 no plea has been
taken by the petitioner/defendant No.3 in her written statement and
additional written statements with regard to the earlier partition between
her father and others in the year 1961 and further, the plea of the
petitioner that the above documents are recently traced on opening the
trunk box belonging to their father is also found not tenable and hence, in
the facts and circumstances of this case without there being any specific
pleading no oral or documentary can be adduced and the petitioner has
2 AVR, J
C.R.P.Nos.793, 829 and 830 of 2020
not shown sufficient cause to condone the delay caused in filing of the
said documents and it is the settled law that the Court shall judiciously
exercise the discretion to receive even those filed belatedly if there is any
sufficient cause for earlier non-filing and such discretion shall be
exercised in rare case and not as a matter of mere asking to receive
much less without sufficient cause and as such, there are no merits in
the above applications and the above applications are liable to be
dismissed. The point is answered accordingly".
3. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused
the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that those
documents pertain prior to the year 2013 and at the time of filing of
written statement itself, the petitioner/defendant No.3 has taken a
specific plea at paragraph No.14 to the effect that after demise of
Sri Venkatanarayana, her father, the defendant Nos.4 and 5 suffered
untold mental agony and grief, and during his life time, he told them
that there are some documents in respect of the suit schedule
property with him and in fact, the defendants were searching for the
documents possessed by Sri Venkatanarayana and immediately
after tracing out the said documents, they are intending to file
additional written statement before the Court. He further submits that
these documents were traced out and the same is mentioned in the
affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.110 of 2020 at paragraph No.5 to
the effect that though the petitioner made severe search for the
partition documents, she could not get it, but recently three days
ago, while she was cleaning the house, she found old trunk box
locked by her father and she broke open the lock and found the
original Parikath (Partition Deed) executed between Gajula Ramaiah
and Gajula Venkata Naraana being minor rep. by his mother after
3 AVR, J
C.R.P.Nos.793, 829 and 830 of 2020
death of Gajula Venkaiah. Thus, the petitioner is able to establish
that these documents were in the custody of her late father, who has
stated about the same during his life time, and immediately, after
tracing out the said documents, they have filed three applications,
one to reopen the evidence of D.W.1, who is defendant No.1, vide
I.A.No.110 of 2020; another to recall the evidence of D.W.1 for
marking of documents as exhibits vide I.A.No.111 of 2020; and third
one to receive the enlisted documents on record to mark the same
as exhibits vide I.A.No.112 of 2020. He further submits that though
reasonable explanation is given on behalf of the defendants that
they made all efforts to produce the documents, the Court below has
not taken into consideration the fact that they have taken such plea
in the written statement itself.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely upon the
judgment of this Court reported in John Santiyago and others vs.
Clement Dass and others1 equivalent citation 2014 2 ALD 184;
2014 3 ALT 83. In paragraph No.6 of the said judgment, it is
mentioned that law is well settled that when substantial justice and
technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of
substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Learned counsel also
submits that no prejudice would cause to the plaintiffs if the said
documents are received and, evidence of D.W.1 is re-opened by
recalling him for marking of the said documents as exhibits.
5. In the instant case, notices were served on the respondents,
but they remained absent even though notice on the learned counsel
2013(0) SCJ Online (AP) 1538
4 AVR, J
C.R.P.Nos.793, 829 and 830 of 2020
for respondents before the Court below was served. Though suit
relates to the year 2013, the trial is still in progress. In view of the
explanation of the defendants in their written statement that as and
when the document is traced out, they will file the same before the
Court, I deem it fit to give a direction to the Court below to re-open
the evidence of D.W.1 for further examination and to receive the
document-Parikath (Partition Deed) in evidence on behalf of
defendants subject to proof, relevancy and rules of evidence.
6. In the result, all these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed, and
consequently, the common order dated 20.02.2020 in I.A.Nos.110,
111 and 112 of 2020 in O.S.No.160 of 2013 on the file of I Additional
District Judge, Khammam, is set aside and these applications are
allowed. The Court below shall re-open the evidence of D.W.1 and
receive the documents subject to proof, relevancy and rules of
evidence. Both parties to the suit shall cooperate with the trial Court
for expeditious disposal of the suit, and the trial Court shall dispose
of the suit within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. No order as to costs.
7. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________
A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY, J
3rd December, 2021
sj
