Telangana High Court

K.Purnachandra Rao vs Dr.V.Rajeswara Rao on 2 December, 2022

Bench: A.Santhosh Reddy

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

     CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.150 of 2020 and 75 of 2020

COMMON ORDER:


         Civil Revision Petition No. 150 of 2020 is filed by the

petitioner/defendant aggrieved by the order, dated 09.12.2019, in

I.A.No.574 of 2019 in O.S.No.1171 of 2008 on the file of I

Additional Senior Civil Judge's Court, Ranga Reddy District at

L.B.Nagar.


        Civil Revision Petition No.75 of 2020 is filed by the

petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved by the order, dated 09.12.2019, in

I.A.No.574 of 2019 in O.S.No.1171 of 2008 on the file of

I Additional Senior Civil Judge's Court, Ranga Reddy District at

L.B.Nagar.


2.      Since these civil revision petitions arose out of the impugned

order passed in I.A.No.574 of 2019, I am inclined to dispose of them

by way of common order. The parties hereinafter referred to as the

plaintiff and the defendant as arrayed in the suit.
                                    2

3.    During the pendency of CRP.No.75 of 2020, the plaintiff died

and his legal representatives were brought on record as petitioner

Nos.2 to 4 in the said CRP.


4. Heard both sides. Perused the record.


5.    The respondent in C.R.P.No.150 of 2020 and the first petitioner

in CRP.No.75 of 2020 is the plaintiff and the petitioner in

CRP.No.150 of 2020 and the respondent in CRP.No.75 of 2020 is the

defendant in O.S.No.1171 of 2008 filed for specific performance to

direct the defendant to execute and registered sale deed in respect of

Ac.04-20 guntas in sy.No.10/2 at Habsiguda Village, Uppal Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District by receiving balance sale consideration. The

defendant filed written statement denying the allegations. While so,

I.A.No.574 of 2019 was filed by the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14

(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) to

receive the documents by granting leave to file and to mark the same

as exhibits on his behalf. Counter affidavit was filed by the defendant.

On consideration of the contentions of both sides, the trial Court

partly allowed the petition for marking of alleged agreement of sale

dated 13.08.1981 subject to objection and the claim for rest of the

documents is dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed

CRP.No.75 of 2020 and the defendant filed CRP.No.150 of 2020.

6. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.574 of

2019 that the plaintiff filed his chief affidavit and the time of marking

of documents, it was noticed that original documents filed by him are

misplaced and this Court directed to take steps to reconstruct the

same. Accordingly, the reconstruction of file was ordered. While

searching old records, he traced carbon copy of agreement of sale

dated 13.08.1981 and also agreement of sale dated 18.03.1980

executed by the defendant in favour of one Prathap Reddy and others

and receipt dated 14.08.1980, certificate of Encumbrance, dated

20.07.1977, 09.05.1979, receipt dated 14.08.1980 and agreement

dated 31.10.1980 and Deed of cancellation dated 31.08.1981. The

agreement was executed by defendant in favour of T.Pratap Reddy

and others show that earlier he entered into agreement of sale

received payments and thereafter the cancellation took place.

Subsequently, he entered into the agreement of sale with the

defendant. The carbon copy of agreement of sale dated 03.08.1981

executed by V.Rajeshwara Rao, defendant in his favour shows that

they entered into agreement of sale and in the absence of original

agreement of sale, the carbon copy is to be treated as only as the

document is duly signed by the parties. It is further stated that no

prejudice would be caused to the defendant, if the same are received.

Non filing of documents was neither willful nor negligent on his part.

7. The defendant in his counter specifically denied the execution of

agreement of sale dated 13.08.1981. The alleged agreement dated

18.03.1980, receipt dated 18.03.1980 and receipt dated 14.08.1980 to

which the plaintiff is not party to the documents and he is no way

concerned to the suit transaction. The plaintiff is no way concerned

to the mutual agreement between himself and T.Pratap Reddy and

also to the mutual deed of agreement of cancellation. The plaintiff is

not a party to the said document. The said documents are not relevant

for the purpose of deciding the present suit. The order of

reconstruction of the documents by this Court was subject to proof

and relevancy and with a right to raise any objections by the

defendant during evidence. The documents cannot be received at this

stage and cannot be marked.

8. A perusal of the record would disclose that the plaintiff filed

original documents of agreement of sale and other documents and at

the time of evidence, when the documents were introduced for

marking through the plaintiff, the originals were found missing. It

appears enquiry was conducted and on the instructions of the

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District,

reconstruction of documents was permitted vide order dated

05.02.2019. The said order was challenged by the defendant before

this Court in CRP.No.1228 of 2019. This Court disposed of said

C.R.P by order dated 25.06.2019 observing that there was no error in

permitting for reconstruction of the (17) original documents filed in

O.S.No.1171 of 2008. The defendant is entitled to raise whatever

objections as are permitted to him under law at the time of tendering

the same in evidence. The Apex Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal

v. State of Gujarat1 deprecated the practice in respect of the

admissibility of any material evidence, where the Court does not

proceed further without passing order on such objection. It was held

that all objections raised shall be decided by the Court at the final

stage. The Court held as under:

" 14. When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence- taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of

(2001) 3 SCC 1

oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed).

9. In the instant case, the trial Court in the impugned order

categorically stated that except the document agreement of sale dated

13.08.1981, which is part of document in the suit, the other

documents are not relevant for the purpose of effective and proper

adjudication of lis between the parties. It appears the said documents

relate to third party. The trial Court has rightly took a view that if the

plaintiff intends to rely on the said documents, he can examine him as

independent witness and if necessary, those documents can be

confronted to him at the time of evidence.

10. Undisputedly, the subject documents are reconstructed as per the

orders of this Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of

the case, as the original documents alleged to have been filed by the