Kodicherlarukmaiah Died Per L.Rs vs Aligani Chandra Lingam
2024 Latest Caselaw 2436 Tel

Telangana High Court

Kodicherlarukmaiah Died Per L.Rs vs Aligani Chandra Lingam on 28 June, 2024

Author: P.Sam Koshy

Bench: P.Sam Koshy

       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

 CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.473, 474 and 476 of 2024

COMMON ORDER:

These are three Civil Revision Petitions which have been filed

by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

assailing the order dated 01.12.2023 in I.A.Nos.777, 778 and 779 of

2023 in O.S.No.938 of 2022 passed by theIX Additional District

Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar.

2. Heard Mr. R. Anurag, learned counsel for the petitioners and

Mr. M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf

of Mr. Lingala Sudheer, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the

defendants before the Court below. For convenience, they will

hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed before the Court below.

4. Three interlocutory applications were filed for recall and reopen

the evidence of DW.1 and to receive the said documents. Initially this

Court while hearing the matter on admission on 09.02.2024 had

stayed the further proceedings until further orders. The present Civil

Revision Petitions are those which have been filed on 08.02.2024.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs had filed the

Suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of

the Suit schedule property admeasuring 2.29 guntas in Survey

No.82 situated at Nagireddy Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District and also Suit schedule property admeasuring 4.32 guntas in

Survey No.84 situated at Nagireddy Village, Moinabad Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District. After the pleadings were completed, the

evidence of both sides were closed and the Suit schedule property

was fixed for final arguments of the matter. Meanwhile, the

defendants could obtain certain documents pertaining to the Suit

schedule property and according to the defendants these documents

were very much relevant for proper adjudication of the Suit itself.

Therefore, the defendants filed three interlocutory applications before

the Court below vide I.A.Nos.722, 723 and 724 of 2023. Since the

defendants filed the aforesaid three interlocutory applications, the

plaintiffs also filed three interlocutory applications i.e. I.A.Nos.777,

778 and 779 of 2023. All these interlocutory applications came up

for hearing and the Court below vide docket order dated 01.12.2023

rejected all the six interlocutory applications.

6. The defendants were aggrieved of the order dated 01.12.2023

so far as rejection of their interlocutory applications i.e.I.A.Nos.722,

723 and 724 of 2023. The defendants preferred three separate Civil

Revision Petitions challenging the rejection of their interlocutory

applications vide Civil Revision Petition No.3751 of 2023, Civil

Revision Petition No.3756 of 2023 and Civil Revision Petition

No.3761 of 2023 which stood decided vide common order dated

12.01.2024.

7. The Honourable Bench hearing the three Civil Revision

Petitions allowed the petitions subject to payment of costs of

Rs.10,000/- holding that the documents which are sought to be

marked are public documents and no prejudice would be caused to

anyone; and also with a direction to the Court below to proceed and

decide the Suit itself within a period of four (04) weeks from the date

of receipt of a copy of the order dated 12.01.2024.

8. Admittedly, the three Civil Revision Petitions were decided by-

parte and the plaintiffs were also duly represented and had contested

the Civil Revision Petitions on its own merits. The plaintiffs

apparently were not aggrieved of the rejection of their interlocutory

applications till the Civil Revision Petitions filed by the defendants

stood allowed on 12.01.2024. The presentthree Civil Revision

Petitionsas mentioned earlier were in fact filed only on 08.02.2024

i.e. much after the Civil Revision Petitions of the defendants stood

allowed.

9. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is

that the rejection of the interlocutory applications vide order dated

01.12.2023 by the Court below so far as recall and reopen the

evidence of DW.1 and to receive the said documents are concerned,

the petitioners/plaintiffs are entitled a treatment in parity in the light

of the three Civil Revision Petitions which were filed by the

defendants stood allowed. According to the learned counsel for the

petitioners the documents which they want to get marked by way of

I.A.Nos.779 of 2024 i.e. the receipt of documents are very much

relevant for proper adjudication of the present Suit for declaration of

title.

10. Likewise, it was also the contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioners that these are documents which were obtained

subsequently under the Right to Information Act and it has become

all the more necessary in the light of the reopening of the case at the

behest of the defendants vide the three Civil Revision Petitions

mentioned above. Therefore, the three Civil Revision Petitions may

also be allowed and appropriate directions be given and if necessary

even impose conditions.

11. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

respondents opposing the Civil Revision Petitions contended that the

Civil Revision Petitions are not worth admitting and are totally devoid

of merits. In fact, the three interlocutory applications that the

plaintiffs had filed itself was not sustainable and the Court below

had rightly rejected the same. It was the contention of the learned

Senior Counsel that upon plain reading of the three interlocutory

applications itself would be revealing that there were no reasons

whatsoever assigned by the plaintiffs in the three interlocutory

applications as to the necessity for bringing the said documents on

record and for recalling the witnesses.

12. It was also the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the

respondents that no justification was also given by the plaintiffs in

their application as to why theydid not move the interlocutory

applications till now and waited for the trial to reach to its

penultimate stage while filing the interlocutory applications for recall

and reopen the evidence of DW.1 and to receive the said documents.

13. Lastly, it was contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the

Civil Revision Petitions also should not be entertained because even

after filing of the Civil Revision Petitions by the defendants, the

plaintiffs did not think it proper to challenge the interlocutory

applications of their which stood rejected. Moreover, even after

allowing the Civil Revision Petitions of the defendants, the plaintiffs

proceeded with the trial and the stage has reached where even the

arguments were advanced on both sides and it is thereafter that the

Civil Revision Petitions was pressed upon by the plaintiffs and have

obtained an interim protection. Therefore, by conduct also the

plaintiffs did not deserve any relief and prayed for rejection of the

three Civil Revision Petitions.

14. A plain perusal of the contents and pleadings of the three

interlocutory applications which the plaintiffs have filed for recall

and reopen the evidence of DW.1 and to receive the said documents

respectively, it would clearly reflect that the plaintiffs are totally

silent about the facts and circumstances which necessitated them to

file those interlocutory applications at the stage of final arguments of

the Suit. There is no averment in the pleadings that these documents

were not within the knowledge and notice of the plaintiffs. There are

also no reasons mentioned as to why they could not obtain or bring

it on record earlier.

15. Another fact which needs serious consideration is that the Civil

Revision Petitions which were filed by the defendants stood allowed

on 12.01.2024. Pursuant to the directions, the Court below

proceeded with the same and the matter was taken up for hearing on

01.02.2024, on which date, as per the of the High Court the

documents were taken on record. DW.1 was recalled and documents

were marked as B22-24. He was also cross-examined by the

plaintiffs and thereafter the matter stood posted for final arguments

on 06.02.2024. On 06.02.2024, the plaintiffs' arguments started and

it got concluded on 09.02.2024 on which date the defendants also

concluded their arguments and thereafter the matter was posted for

final orders. In between, on 08.02.2024, the present Civil Revision

Petitions have been filed.

16. From the conduct, what is apparent is that from 01.12.2023

i.e. the date on which the interlocutory applications were rejected till

06.02.2024 when the final arguments had begun, the plaintiffs were

not aggrieved of the said order. The plaintiffs did not think it proper

to challenge these interlocutory applications when the defendants

had filed Civil Revision Petitions challenging the rejection of their

interlocutory applications. They did not think it even proper to file

the Civil Revision Petitions while the Civil Revision Petitions of the

defendants were entertained and even stood allowed on 12.01.2024

and it was only after the final arguments had been advanced by the

plaintiffs that they thought of filing of the Civil Revision Petitions.

17. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner had been

strongly harping on the parity, but what is also required to be

appreciated is the fact that the plaintiffs had not shown any bona

fides for their not filing the Civil Revision Petitions promptly or even

when the defendants had questioned by way of Civil Revision

Petitions so far as the rejection of their interlocutory applications are

concerned. Further what is also reflected is that in the three

interlocutory applications that have been filed, the plaintiffs have not

said anything about the relevancy of the documents which they

intend to bring on record, the reason for which it is brought on

record is not mentioned and the justification for not having filed

earlier is also not reflected. On the contrary, the perusal of these

documents would show that the pleadings of the Suit bear the

mentioning of couple of these very documents already being marked.

Yet the plaintiffs want it to bring on record i.e. those documents

which already stand marked.

18. In the given factual circumstances of the case, this Court is of

the firm view that the plaintiffs cannot be now permitted to press

upon the interlocutory applications which for a considerable long

period of time they themselves did not want to challenge. This Court

is also reluctant to take into consideration the interlocutory

applications for the simple reason that even subsequent to the

allowing of the Civil Revision Petitions filed by the defendants, the

plaintiffs and their counsel proceeded with the trial and had even

advanced their final arguments and now at a later stage they cannot

be permitted to going for recall, reopen and receipt of the documents.

19. It would be appropriate at this juncture to take note of the

observations in the case of K.K. Veluswamy vs. N. Palaniswamy 1

wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held at paragraph Nos.14

and 19as under:

"14. The amended provisions of the Code contemplate and expect a trial court to hear the arguments immediately after the completion of evidence and then proceed to judgment.

1 (2011) 11 SCC 275

Therefore, it was unnecessary to have an express provision for reopening the evidence to examine a fresh witness or for recalling any witness for further examination. But if there is a time gap between the completion of evidence and hearing of the arguments, for whatsoever reason, and if in that interregnum, a party comes across some evidence which he could not lay his hands on earlier, or some evidence in regard to the conduct or action of the other party comes into existence, the court may in exercise of its inherent power under Section 151 of the Code, permit the production of such evidence if it is relevant and necessary in the interest of justice, subject to such terms as the court may deem fit to impose.

.... ... .... .

19. We may add a word of caution. The power under Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite trials. But where the application is found to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that non-production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the court may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh evidence. But if it does so, it should ensure that the process does not become a protracting tactic. The court should firstly award appropriate costs to the other party to compensate for the delay. Secondly, the court should

take up and complete the case within a fixed time schedule so that the delay is avoided. Thirdly, if the application is found to be mischievous, or frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with heavy costs."

20. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any

strong case made out by the petitioners/plaintiffs for recalling,

reopening and receipt of the said documents by way of the three

interlocutory applications that stand rejected on 01.12.2023 by the

Court below. The three Civil Revision Petitions therefore being devoid

of merits, stand dismissed. No costs.

21. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J

Date: 28.06.2024 GSD