M/S. Bajaj Allianz General ... vs G. Sudha Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 5961 Tel

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY
                       C.R.P.No.2256 of 2022
ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the respondent

No.3-M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company

Limited, assailing the order dated 12.07.2022 in IA No.28

of 2022 in MVOP No.273 of 2018 on the file of the learned

XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at

Secunderabad.

2. That application in IA No.28 of 2022 was filed

under Order XVI, Rules-6 & 7 read with Section 151 of the

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short 'CPC') to summon the

Income Tax Officer, ITO Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad,

to produce the income tax returns pertaining to PW.3 for

the assessment year 2018-19 and to give evidence in that

regard.

3. The trial Court having considered the rival

contentions dismissed the said application with an

observation that PW.3 is only the Chief Executive Officer

(CEO) of the Company by name "Organic Trends Inc" and

he was cross-examined at length, now the petitioner is

seeking to summon the income tax returns of PW.3

AVR,J CRP No.2256 of 2022

pertaining to the assessment year 2018-19. Evidently, the

deceased was not employed under PW.3, but said to be

employed in the said company, therefore, the income tax

returns of PW.3 are no way relevant for proper adjudication

of the matter. It was further observed by the trial Court

that the petitioner herein earlier filed three petitions in IA

Nos.386, 387 and 388 of 2021 to recall, to reopen the case

and to direct PW.3 to produce some documents and said

applications were dismissed as per the order dated

09.11.2021, as such the present petition serves no useful

purpose since the income tax returns of PW.3 have no

bearing at all.

4. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. The

submissions made on either side have received due

consideration by this Court.

5. Be it stated that the petitioner herein is the

respondent No.3 in MVOP No.273 of 2018 before the

learned XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at

Secunderabad. It appears the evidence on behalf of

petitioners was concluded and thereafter, the evidence on

behalf of respondents is in progress in MVOP No.273 of

AVR,J CRP No.2256 of 2022

2018, and it was filed by the parents of the deceased

claiming compensation for accidental death of their son, G.

Chandrakanth Reddy. Undisputedly, the petitioner herein

has filed earlier IA Nos.386, 387 and 388 of 2021 to reopen

the petitioners' evidence, to recall PW.3 and to direct PW.3

to produce some documents and the said applications were

dismissed by the trial Court on 09.11.2021. PW.3 is not

the employer of the deceased, but he is only the CEO of the

company by name "Organic Trends Inc" where the

deceased was an employee and worked only for about eight

days prior to his death. Accordingly, the petitioners in

MVOP No.273 of 2008 have examined PW.3-CEO of the

said company only to establish that the deceased was

employed in their company and that he was getting an

amount of Rs.68,000/- per month salary.

6. Order-XVI of CPC deals with summoning and

attendance of witnesses. This application is filed under

Order-XVI Rules-6 & 7 of CPC only to summon the Income

Tax Officer, ITO towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad to

produce income tax returns of PW.3 for the assessment

year 2018-19. There is no averment in the supporting

AVR,J CRP No.2256 of 2022

affidavit to the effect that efforts were made by the

petitioners for securing the income tax returns of PW.3.

That apart, undisputedly the deceased was employed in a

company by name "Organic Trends Inc" wherein PW.3 is

working as CEO and he has given evidence with reference

to the material available on record.

7. It was never the case of the petitioners that the

deceased was employed under PW.3. Therefore, the income

tax returns of PW.3 are no way relevant for proper

adjudication of the matter. As such, in my considered

opinion, the trial Curt has rightly concluded that the

present petition serves no useful purpose, as the income

tax returns pertaining to PW.3 have no bearing at all and

summoning the concerned Income Tax Officer to produce

the income tax returns of PW.3 is a futile exercise.

8. In this context, I may also refer to the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s. Bagai

Construction, through its Proprietor Lalit Bagai v. M/s.

Gupta Building Material Store1 wherein it is held that

AIR 2013 SC 1849

AVR,J CRP No.2256 of 2022

power to receive additional documents or to recall

witnesses after closure of the evidence has to be exercised

sparingly and in appropriate cases and not as a general

rule merely on the ground that recall of such witnesses or

summoning of such documents would not cause any

prejudice to the parties. In para-12 of the said judgment, it

was further held that after change of various provisions by

way of amendment in C.P.C., it is desirable that the

recording of evidence should be continuous and followed

by arguments and decision thereon within a reasonable

time. When the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that

Court should constantly endeavour to follow such time

schedule and if the same is not followed, the purpose of

amending several provisions in the Code would get

defeated.

9. In the instant case, the present application is

filed after closure of the petitioners' evidence and after

dismissal of IA Nos.386, 387 and 388 of 2022 as per the

order dated 09.11.2021 to reopen the case, to recall PW.3

and to direct him to produce some other documents. That

apart, evidently the deceased was not employed under

AVR,J CRP No.2256 of 2022

PW.3 and the income tax returns of PW.3 either relating to

the assessment year 2018-19 or relating to any further

period have no bearing at all.

10. Therefore, on overall examination of the entire

material available on record and also considering the stage

of trial in MVOP No.273 of 2018, I do not find any

irregularity committed by the trial Court in the order

impugned and such order does not warrant any

interference by this Court and it is sustained.

11. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is

dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case,

there shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending in this

civil revision petition, shall stand closed.

_________________________________ A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY, J.

Date: 17.11.2022 Isn