Budsireddy Srinivas vs Kaja Ravikiran And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1784 Tel

      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

             Civil Revision Petition No.257 of 2023

O R D E R:

The present revision is filed aggrieved by the orders dated

08.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.429 of 2022 in O.S.No.124 of 2016,

whereby the application filed under Order 8 Rule 3 of CPC to

receive the documents was dismissed.

2. The revision petitioner herein is defendant No.8 in the suit

and the respondents/plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking

mandatory injunction. The suit is of the year 2016. In the written

statement filed by the revision petitioner herein/defendant No.8, it

is stated that the defendant Nos.7 and 8 have purchased the land

admeasuring Ac.0-10Gts through registered sale deed dated

05.05.2003 from one Narla Prabhakar and defendant No.6 has

purchased an extent of Ac.0.05Gts from one Yamsani Srinivas and

Narla Prabhakar through registered sale deed dated 08.05.2003.

Further it is stated in the written statement that one Saleem

Khatoon was the owner and possessor of the property as per the

decree in O.S.No.810 of 1984 dated 26.03.1985 and thereafter she

sold the said land through simple sale deed to Narla Prabhakar

and his name was entered as owner and possessor and thereafter,

the MRO, Karimnagar granted record of rights declaring him as

owner and possessor as per the proceedings dated 20.02.1995 and

his purchase was regularized by collecting required stamp duty C.R.P.No.257 of 2023

and registration fee by due enquiry and pattadar pass book and

title deed were also issued. It is further stated that the names of

the defendant Nos.6, 7 and 8 entered into the revenue records,

such as pahanies by grant of record of rights by the MRO and they

were declared as owners and possessors of the said property.

3. The revision petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of I.A

has stated that he could obtain the certified copies of registered

sale deed, pahanies and certified copy of written statmenet,

judgment and decree in O.S.No.810 of 1984 recently, as such, he

has come up with an application under Order 8, Rule 3 of CPC to

receive the said documents.

4. The respondents/plaintiffs herein have filed their counter in

the said I.A. Relying on the judgment of this court in 2019 (5) ALT

226 (TS), it is stated that grant of leave is not automatic and unless

and until valid reasons are furnished for not filing the documents

along with plaint, leave cannot be granted at a later stage. It is

further stated that as the suit is of the year 2016 and now it has

come up for evidence of PW2 and at this stage, the documents

cannot be received.

5. The court below has dismissed the application stating that C.R.P.No.257 of 2023

nothing has been mentioned in the petition why the petitioner has

not filed the documents along with the written statement and what

is the reason for the delay and as a matter of right, the said

application cannot be allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has already taken the said plea about the documents in his written

statement and as he could not file those documents, now he has

filed the I.A to receive the documents. He has also relied on the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sugandhi (Dead)

by Legal Representatives and another v. P. Rajkumar

represented by his Power Agent Imam Oli1 and submits that the

procedure is handmaid of justice and procedural and technical

hurdles shall not allowed to come in way of court while doing

substantial justice. He submits that just because the petitioner

has not given proper reasons in the affidavit, that itself cannot be a

ground to dismiss the petition.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterating the grounds

in the counter submits that the court below has rightly dismissed

the application.

1 (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 706 C.R.P.No.257 of 2023

8. The suit is of the year 2016. When the trial has commenced

and the suit is coming up for evidence of PW2, the present

application is filed by the petitioner/defendant. Petitioner has not

given any reasons why he could file the documents at an earlier

point of time and the court below has dismissed the application on

the said ground. Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Sugandhi's case (stated supra), wherein, it is held that

the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the

adversary party and the courts must lean towards doing

substantial justice rather than relying up on procedural and

technical violation. No doubt, the petitioner has not stated

anything in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., but, he laid the

foundation in the written statement. In the interest of justice, this

court is inclined to allow the revision by setting aside the orders

and remand the same to the court below for fresh consideration.

9. In the facts and circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is

allowed setting aside the order under revision and the matter is

remanded back to the trial court. The petitioner shall file an

additional affidavit before the court below giving all the reasons by

the reopening day and from thereon, within a period of one week,

the court below shall pass appropriate orders on considering the C.R.P.No.257 of 2023

additional affidavit. If no such additional affidavit is filed, the court

below is at liberty to proceed with the matter. The petitioner shall

pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the respondents/plaintiffs towards

cost.

The miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand

automatically closed.

___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 25th April, 2023 gvl

Note: Issue C.C by 28.04.2023.