D Laxmaiah, R.R.Dist vs D Davanamma, R.R.Dist 1 Other
2023 Latest Caselaw 1462 Tel

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                     C.R.P.No.1138 OF 2017
ORDER:

This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 13.02.2017

in I.A.No.102 of 2017 in O.S.No.880 of 2011, on the file of the

Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA)

Act-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy

District at L.B.Nagar, wherein the said application filed by the

respondent No.1 herein (defendant No.1) under Order VIII Rule

1(a) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short,

'CPC') to receive the certified copy of the common order dated

24.08.2012 in W.P.Nos.1621 & 3168 of 2012, was allowed

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned

counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the record.

3. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.880 of 2011

against respondent No.1 herein/defendant No.1 and another for

declaration and consequential injunction in respect of suit

schedule property. While the arguments in the suit were heard in

part, respondent No.1 herein filed I.A.No.102 of 2017 to receive

the certified copy of the common order dated 24.08.2012 passed by

this Court in W.P.Nos.1621 & 3168 of 2012. It is stated in the

affidavit filed in support of the application that though reference of

the said judgment was made in the plaint and the written statement,

due to oversight, the certified copy of the same was not filed before

the Court below and marked, as the said judgment is crucial for

adjudication of the case. The petitioner filed counter affidavit

opposing the said application and stating that the judgment

now sought to be relied upon was despatched and marked to the

counsel on 13.09.2012 and no reasons were stated as to why

the said judgment was held for nearly four and half years.

After hearing both sides, the Court below allowed I.A.No.102 of

2017. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the

trial Court has committed error in allowing the application filed for

receiving the documents though no reasons were stated in the

application for not producing the said judgment along with the

written statement. In support of his contentions, learned counsel

placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in N.PREMAIAH

AND OTHERS v. NARMALA DEVA RAJ AND ANOTHER1

and MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSRTC, HYDERABAD AND

OTHERS v. P.V.SURYA NARAYANA2.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1, while

supporting the impugned order, would contend that there is no

illegality in the order passed by the trial Court and the certified

copy of the judgment was rightly received by the trial Court for

proper adjudication of the case. In support of his contentions,

learned counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCE PRIVATE

LIMTIED AND ANOTHER v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF

INVESTIGATION3.

6. In the affidavit filed in support of the application under

Order VIII Rule 1(a) read with Section 151 CPC to receive the

subject document, respondent No.1 stated that though it is

mentioned in the plaint and written statement about the said

2015(2) ALD 159

2017(4) ALD 733

(2022) 10 SCC 592

document, the same was not filed by oversight and the said

document is crucial for adjudication of the case. The objection of

revision petitioner is that no valid reasons have been assigned as to

filing of the said document belatedly, especially when the suit is at

the stage of arguments.

7. The contention of respondent No.1 herein is that prior to

filing of the suit, the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam passed resumption

orders vide letter dated 12.09.2011 and letter dated 02.11.2011 in

respect of the suit schedule property admeasuring Acs.3-20 Gts., in

Sy.No.300/26 of Kongarakalan Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh

Lands (Prohibition and Transfer) Act, 1977. The said proceedings

have been challenged before this Court in W.P.No.1621 & 3168

of 2012 and the same was allowed by common order dated

24.08.2012. In the said order, it was observed that the present suit

would decide the manner in which the ex gratia amount has to be

paid to the petitioner/plaintiff. It appears that the subject document

is filed belatedly, but the relevancy of the document has been

explained by respondent No.1 in the application filed by him for

receiving the document.

8. The only ground raised by the petitioner herein is that no

valid reasons were assigned for the delay in filing the said

document. The document is nothing but a common order passed

by this Court. I do not think that it would cause any prejudice to

the case of the petitioner if the same is received in evidence.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and

keeping in view the dispute between the parties, the subject

document is very much relevant for proper adjudication of the case.

Since the details of the judgment have been given by both the

parties as stated by respondent No.1, though it is filed belatedly,

the same does not cause prejudice to the case of respondent No.1.

The reasons for delay in filing the common order dated 24.08.2012

passed in W.P.No.1621 & 3168 of 2012 belatedly have been

explained satisfactorily.

10. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the

impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality

warranting interference by this Court in exercise of powers under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

11. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand closed.

_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 29.03.2023 Lrkm