Telangana High Court

Donthula Srinivas vs V. Ajay Kumar on 11 October, 2023

Bench: K. Sarath

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

     CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1058 OF 2022

ORDER:

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Counsel for the respondent.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the

order dated 08.03.2022 in I.A.No.277 of 2021 in

O.S.No.46 of 2016 on the file of V Additional District

Judge (II-FTC), Warangal.

3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the

respondent is the defendant in the suit before the lower

Court. For the sake of convenience the parties herein

are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

4. The plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.46 of 2016 before

the Court below for specific performance of agreement

of sale dated 15.11.2015 against the defendant. In the

said suit defendant filed I.A.No.277 of 2021 in

O.S.No.46 of 2016 to receive certain documents viz.,

Two CDs and one Mobile Phone conversations stating

SK,J CRP No.1058 of 2022

that prior to agreement of sale, there were

conversations between him and the plaintiff and one

Donthula Ramesh and had given particulars of such

conversations in the written statement and those

conversations were recorded in Mobile Nos.95426

75871, 80190 48924 and 91000 39294 and reduced

the same into C.Ds and filed along with the petition.

5. The plaintiff filed counter to the petition stating

that the Mobile phone and two CDs conversations are

created and fabricated for the purpose of suit and they

ought to have filed at the time of filing written

statement, if they were available with them and no

reasons were put-forth by the petitioner for not filing

the same along with the written statement and there

are no bonafides.

6. The Court below after hearing both sides, allowed

the petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the present

Civil Revision Petition is filed.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits

that the order under revision is contrary to law, weight

SK,J CRP No.1058 of 2022

to evidence and probabilities of the case. The reception

of alleged additional documents were pertaining to the

period between 01.11.2015 and 19.02.2016 and filed

belatedly and the Court below without considering the

said aspect erroneously allowed the petition and

requested to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting

aside the impugned order.

8. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the

respondent-defendant submits that the Court below

rightly allowed the petition filed by the petitioner and

there are no grounds in the revision and requested to

dismiss the petition.

9. The learned Counsel for the respondent in

support of his contention placed the reliance on the

following Judgment:

S.Hanumakka and others Vs. Boya Chinthalaiah and others 1

10. After hearing both sides and perusing the records,

this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner

herein is plaintiff in O.S.No.46 of 2016 and the

2023 SCC Online TS 1037

SK,J CRP No.1058 of 2022

respondent is the defendant in the suit. The petitioner

herein filed suit for specific performance of contract

under Section 26 read with Order 7 Rule 1 of CPC.

The respondent herein filed I.A.No.277 of 2021 in

O.S.No.46 of 2016 for receiving the recorded

conversation in mobile phone as transferred to two

CDs and one mobile (Lava-Iris).

11. The contention of the petitioner is that receiving

of Mobile (Lava-Iris) and two CDs in the evidence is

misconceived in law and the impugned order is liable

to be set aside. If the alleged CD or mobile are in

existence, they ought to have filed along with the

written statement and there is no reason forthcoming

for non filing of the same along with the written

statement. After six years, filing of the suit trying to

create a new case which was not pleaded and the

Court below without taking into account of the same

allowed the petition.

SK,J CRP No.1058 of 2022

12. The Court below while disposing of the

Interlocutory application, considered both sides and

observed that the proper authentication and scrutiny is

required to establish the voice of the plaintiff and

defendant and one V.Ramesh and it is for the

petitioner to establish that the mobile numbers as

mentioned in the petition belongs to him and the

recordings are genuine by way of producing more

documents during trial. But, mere receiving the

documents would not cause any prejudice to the

respondent/plaintiff at this stage.

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sugandhi (dead)

Vs. P.Raj Kumar 2 held that the procedure is the

handmaid of justice and that the Court should take

lenient view when an application is made for

production of documents under Order 8 Rule 1-A Sub-

Rule 3 of CPC.

2020 (10) SCC 706

SK,J CRP No.1058 of 2022

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sugandhi (dead)

Vs. P.Raj Kumar (Supra-2) at para No.9 held as

follows:

"The procedure is the handmaid of justice procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the Court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, Courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the Court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the Court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the documents under sub-rule (3)".

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in in Levaku Pedda

Reddamma and others Vs. Gottumukkala Venkata

Subbamma and another 3 at para Nos.2 and 3 held

as follows:

"The defendant Nos.2 to 5 are in appeal aggrieved against the order passed by the High Court affirming the order passed by the Trial Court refusing to permit the

Unreported Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.7452 of 2022 17.05.2022

SK,J CRP No.1058 of 2022

appellant to produce additional documents in terms of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. We find that the Trial Court as well as the High Court have gravely erred in law in not permitting the defendants to produce documents, the relevance of which can be examined by the Trial Court on the basis of the evidence to be led, but to deprive a party to the suit not to file documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice.

It is well settled that rules of procedure are hand- made of justice and, therefore, even if there is some delay, the Trial Court should have imposed some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself".

16. The above Judgments were followed by this Court

in S.Hanumakka and others Vs. Boya Chinthalaiah

and others (Supra-1).

17. In the instant case also, the Court below allowed

the petition filed by the respondent under Order 8 Rule

3 of CPC for receiving two CDs and one Mobile (Lava-

Iris) subject to condition that the petitioner to establish

that mobiles are mentioned in the petition belong to

him and recording are genuine by way of producing

more documents during trial but mere receiving of the

documents would not cause any prejudice to the

petitioner/respondent herein.