Telangana High Court
Bera Satyanarayana vs Gajula Vijayalaxmi on 18 March, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
C.R.P.No.3450 OF 2023
Between:
Bera Satyanarayana & others
... Petitioner Nos.1, 2 & 4/
Defendants 1, 2 & 4
And
Gajula Vijayalaxmi & another
... Respondent/Plaintiff/
Defendant No.3
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 18.03.2024
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to : Yes
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
____________________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
2 SN,J
CRP No.3450 of 2023
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
C.R.P.No.3450 OF 2023
% 18.03.2024
Between:
# Bera Satyanarayana & others
... Petitioner Nos.1, 2 & 4/
Defendants 1, 2 & 4
And
$ Gajula Vijayalaxmi & another
... Respondent/Plaintiff/
Defendant No.3
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr.V.Rohith,
^ Counsel for Respondents : Mr.K.Ajay Kumar
? Cases Referred:
-
3 SN,J
CRP No.3450 of 2023
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
C.R.P.NO.3450/2023
ORDER
Heard Mr.V.Rohith, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners and Mr.K.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondents.
2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the Propriety
and Legality of the Order dated 14.08.2023, in I.A.No.575 of 2022
in O.S.No.55 of 2013 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge at
Mancherial, whereunder the petition under Section 151 C.P.C. filed
by the defendants to reopen their evidence that was closed on
05.07.2022, was dismissed.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
they are arrayed in the suit before the trial court.
The defendants filed I.A.No.575 of 2022 under section 151
C.P.C. to reopen their evidence which was closed on 05.07.2022.
The plea of the defendants is that the suit was posted for their
evidence and the original documents were filed in E.P.No.44 of
2015 filed by the plaintiff. The E.P., was closed on 31.10.2016. The
4 SN,J
defendants filed petition for return of the original documents filed in
E.P.44/2015 and they are yet to receive the return of the
documents. On 05-07-2022, the trial court closed the evidence of
defendants as they were not ready to adduce evidence for want of
documents. Hence, the petition.
4. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter seriously opposing the
plea of the petitioners/defendants to reopen their evidence. The
respondent/plaintiff alleged that they adduced their evidence and
closed it on 28.01.2020 and that when the suit was posted for the
evidence of the defendants, the defendants were not ready to
adduce their evidence even though the trial court granted several
adjournments and passed conditional orders and that was why the
court closed their evidence. The respondent/plaintiff further alleged
that when the E.P., was closed on 31.10.2016, the
petitioners/defendants ought to have taken their original
documents and filed them into the court or they should have taken
steps to send for those documents from the executing court. They
also alleged that the petition does not disclose the date on which
the petition for return of the documents was filed and as to when
the executing court ordered the return of the documents. The
5 SN,J
respondent/plaintiff lastly alleged that the defendants filed the
petition only to drag on the proceedings.
5. The trial court after hearing both sides and after considering
the material on record passed the impugned order dismissing the
petition to reopen the evidence of the defendants.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court, the
defendants preferred the present revision petition.
7. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
8. The defendants filed their written statement on 24.07.2015.
Order VIII Rule 1-A of Code of Civil Procedure says that all the
documents which the defendants rely upon shall be filed along with
the written statement. As per sub Rule (3) of Rule 1-A of order VIII
C.P.C., a document which ought to be produced by the defendant
but not so produced shall not be received in evidence without the
leave of the court. The defendants in their written statement did
not at all mention that their original documents were filed in the
execution proceedings and so they could not file them along with
the written statement. Further, the Execution Petition admittedly
was closed on 31-10-2016. Immediately thereafter the defendants
6 SN,J
ought to have taken the return of their original documents for the
reason that they had filed their written statement on 24.07.2015
without filing the documents relied upon by them. This apart the
evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 28-01-2020 and after that
date it was the turn of the defendants to adduce their evidence.
But the defendants did not obtain the return of the documents till
05-07-2022 on which date their evidence was closed. The trial
court gave time of nearly two years for the defendants to adduce
their evidence and yet they were not careful to obtain the return of
the original documents from the Executing Court and file them in
the trial court along with petition under order VII Rule 1-A (3).
As rightly observed by the trial court, when the defendants file the
petition to reopen their evidence, they ought to have filed the
petition to receive their original documents and also the petition to
recall DW-1 to show their bonafides to adduce their evidence for
early completion of trial in the suit which is of the year 2013.
9. For the foregoing reasons, this court does not find any
illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the trial court.
7 SN,J
10. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, all interlocutory applications shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________
SUREPALLI NANDA,J
Date: 18.03.2024.
Note: L.R.Copy to be marked
(B/o) Yvkr
