Telangana High Court
Dodda Jesintha vs Yelapati Rathnaker Reddy on 28 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2363 OF 2023
% Dated 28.03.2024
# Dodda Jesintha
W/o.George Reddy, Aged: 71 years,
Raghunathpalli Village and Mandal,
Jangaon District.
....Petitioner
VERSUS
$ Yelapati Rathnaker Reddy
S/o.Ram Reddy, Aged: 45 years,
R/o.Nidigonda Village,
Raghunathpally Village and Mandal,
Jangaon District and another.
... Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Mr.K.Devender
^ Counsel for Respondents : R.K.Chitta
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
1. 2004 (1) KCCR 539
2. 2014 (4) AD (Del) 90
3. (2018) 2 SCC 347
4. 2020 (2) ALT 215 (S.B.)
5. 2019 (5) ALT 226 (S.B.)
6. 2012 (5) ALD 23
7. (2020) 10 SCC 706
8. Civil Appeal No.4096 of 2022 @ SLP (C) No.7452/2022
9. 2004 (1) ALD 440
JSR, J
C.R.P.No.2363 of 2023
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2363 of 2023
O R D E R:
This revision petition is filed, invoking the provisions of Article
227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the orders dated
01.08.2023, passed by the Principal District Judge at Jangaon in
I.A.No.190 of 2023 in O.S.No.123 of 2016.
2. The revision petitioner herein is plaintiff and respondent No.1 is
defendant No.1 in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties
herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit in O.S.No.123 of
2016 before the Court below.
3. Brief facts of the case:
3.1. Plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.123 of 2016 seeking declaration
declaring him as absolute owner and possessor and for perpetual
injunction restraining defendant No.1 from interfering into peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also
sought decree directing defendant No.2 to issue pattadar pass book
and title deed in favour of the plaintiff. In the said suit, the plaintiff
filed application in I.A.No.190 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 14 of
C.P.C. to receive certified copies of six documents. In the said
application, the plaintiff stated that subsequent to filing of suit, the
plaintiff complained before Lokayukta for non-implementation of the
JSR, J
orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangoan in File
No.I/3508/2017, dated 22.07.2019, and basing upon the same,
Lokayukta vide Letter No.807/2020/B1/Lok/8521/2020, dated
17.11.2020, directed the District Collector, Jangaon to submit report.
Pursuant to the same, District Collector, Jangaon addressed a letter
No.E1/1475/2020, dated 07.12.2020, to Revenue Divisional Officer
and to Mandal Revenue Officer calling for detailed report about the
complaint of the plaintiff. Pursuant to the same, Tahsildar addressed
a letter No.Rc.I/2086/2020, dated 09.12.2020 and basing upon the
same, Revenue Divisional Officer addressed a letter
Rc.No.I/2086/2020 dated 19.01.2021. The plaintiff obtained the
certified copies of the above said documents from the concerned
authorities and the same are required to prove his claim in the suit.
He further stated that after obtaining the said documents from the
concerned authorities, he handed over the same to his earlier
Counsel, but he has not filed the same and unless the documents
were received, he will be put to great hardship, especially the suit is
posted to 30.07.2023, for plaintiff's evidence only.
3.2. Defendant No.1 filed counter contending that the documents
filed by the plaintiff are internal correspondence among the officials
and said documents are pertaining to the years 2020, 2021 and 2022
and the same are not relevant for adjudication of the suit .He further
contented that plaintiff has not pleaded the said documents in the
JSR, J
plaint and he filed the application at belated stage without giving any
reasons.
3.3. The Court below dismissed the above said application in
I.A.No.190 of 2023 by its order dated 01.08.2023 on the ground that
the documents sought to be filed are subsequent to filing of the suit
and the same are correspondence between the officials and the said
documents cannot be produced without referring in the plaint and
also plaintiff has not explained the delay in filing the application.
4. Heard Sri K. Devender, learned counsel for the
petitioner/plaintiff and Sri R.K. Chitta, learned counsel for
respondent No.1/defendant No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner
mentioned in the memorandum of grounds that respondent No.2/
Defendant No.2 is not necessary party in the Civil Revision Petition.
5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the Court below
without properly considering the contentions of the plaintiff
erroneously dismissed the application on the ground that plaintiff has
not referred the documents filed along with the application in the
plaint. Admittedly, the said documents are subsequent to filing of the
suit i.e., pertaining to 2020, 2021 and 2022 and question of
mentioning the said documents in the plaint does not arise, as the
suit was filed on 13.10.2016. He further contended that the
documents filed along with application are public documents and
JSR, J
pertaining to the suit schedule property and soon after he obtained
the certified copies from the competent authorities, filed the same
along with application, specifically pleading that he handed over the
same to his earlier counsel but the counsel has not filed the same
immediately and due to mistake on the part of the earlier counsel, the
party should not be suffered. He further contented that the plaintiff
has satisfied all the ingredients of Order VII Rule 14 of C.P.C. In such
circumstances, the Court below ought to have allowed the application,
especially when the suit is posted for plaintiff's evidence only.
5.1. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment in
Nanjunda Setty @ N.S.Tallam vs. Tallam Subbaraya Setty and
sons 1 and L.T. Overseas North Americ INC vs. Sachdeva and Sons
Pvt. Ltd. 2, wherein the Karnataka High Court and Delhi High Court
held that application filed by the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14 of
C.P.C. to receive the documents is permissible and separate leave
application is not required on the ground that documents which are
filed along with application are subsequent to filing of suit.
5.2. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
N.C.Bansal vs. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation and another 3
contending that when the suit is at initial stage, application for
production of documents can be received.
2004 (1) KCCR 539
2014 (4) AD (Del) 90
(2018) 2 SCC 347
JSR, J
6. Per Contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.1/Defendant
No.1 vehemently contended that the application filed by the plaintiff
to receive the documents is not maintainable under law, unless and
until the plaintiff filed independent application seeking leave of the
Court to file documents as required under Order VII sub-rule 3 of
Rule 14 of C.P.C. He further contended that the documents filed by
the plaintiff are internal correspondence between the two officials and
those documents are no way relevant for adjudication of the suit.
6.1. He further contented that along with suit, plaintiff filed
application in I.A.No.196 of 2016 for grant of temporary injunction
and the said application was dismissed by the Court below on
03.07.2019. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed C.M.A.No.800 of
2019 before this Court and the same was disposed of on 29.10.2022
directing the Court below to dispose of the main suit within a period
of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The
plaintiff filed the application only to protract the suit proceedings. He
further contended that plaintiff has not given any reasons in the
affidavit filed in support of the application, about relevancy and
necessity of the documents for adjudication of the suit and also not
given reasons for delay in filing application. The Court below rightly
dismissed the application and there is no illegality or irregularity in
the impugned order.
JSR, J
6.2. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgments of
this Court in:
1. Golkonda Uma Devi v. Enti Manjula and another 4
2. Choudari Rajesham vs. Choudari Lingalaiah (died) and
another 5
7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective
parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals
that plaintiff has filed comprehensive suit seeking declaration of title
and perpetual injunction and also other reliefs in respect of the suit
schedule property. Along with the said suit, he filed application
seeking temporary injunction in I.A.No.196 of 2016 invoking the
provision of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C and the same was
dismissed by the Court below, by its order dated 03.07.2019.
Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed C.M.A.No.800 of 2019 before this
Court. Initially this Court granted interim suspension on 22.08.2022
and thereafter defendant No.1 filed vacate stay petition. This Court
disposed of above the said appeal on 29.10.2022 directing the Court
below to dispose of the main suit in O.S.No.123 of 2016, within a
period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said
order and till such time, the interim order dated 22.08.2022 granted
in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in C.M.A No.800/2019 shall continue.
2020 (2) ALT 215 (S.B.)
2019 (5) ALT 226 (S.B.)
JSR, J
8. It further reveals from the record that when the above said suit
was posted for plaintiff's evidence to 03.07.2023, plaintiff filed
application in I.A.No.190 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 14 of C.P.C. to
receive the certified copies of six documents. In the said application,
plaintiff pleaded that the said documents are public documents
pertaining to the suit schedule property and same are relevant to
prove his claim in the suit and further pleaded that he obtained the
certified copies of the said documents from the concerned authorities
and handed over the same to his previous counsel, but the counsel
could not file the same immediately. The Court below dismissed the
application on the ground that plaintiff has not pleaded the
documents filed along with application in the plaint and also not
explained the reasons for delay in filing the application.
9. The records further reveals that plaintiff filed suit on
13.10.2016 and the documents filed along with application in
IA.No.190 of 2023 pertaining to the years 2020, 2021 and 2022 i,e.,
subsequent to filing of the suit and question of mentioning the said
documents in suit does not arise.
10. Insofar as other reason mentioned by the Court below in the
impugned order that plaintiff has not stated the reasons for delay in
filing the application is concerned, the plaintiff averred in the
application that soon after receiving the certified copies from the
concerned authorities, she had handed over the same to her previous
JSR, J
counsel and the said counsel has not filed the same before the Court
below immediately, hence, she filed the same through present
counsel, as the suit is posted for plaintiff's evidence. It is settled
proposition of law that due to the mistake of counsel, the party should
not be suffered, especially when the suit is posted for plaintiff's
evidence.
11. Insofar as other contention raised by the learned counsel for
defendant No.1, that without explaining the reasons for relevancy of
the documents, plaintiff is not entitled the relief sought in the
application is also not tenable under law, on the ground that the
relevancy and authenticity of the documents can be decided by the
Court in the suit in subsequent stages and not at the stage of
granting permission to receive the documents.
12. Similarly, other contention raised by the learned counsel for
defendant No.1 that plaintiff without seeking leave as required under
Order VII sub-rule 3 of Rule 14 of C.P.C., is not entitled to file
application straight away to receive the documents also not tenable
under law, on the ground that the documents filed by the plaintiff are
subsequent to institution of the suit, especially, in view of the
principle laid down in Nanjunda Setty (1 Supra) and L.T Overseas
North America INC (2 Supra).
13. In Golkonda Uma Devi (4 Supra) and Choudari Rajesham (5
Supra), this Court held that party to the suit should present his
JSR, J
evidence at the earliest point of time, before the suit is closed and in
such circumstances, leave cannot be granted automatically unless
valid reasons are furnished for not filing the said documents along
with plaint. The principle laid down in the above said judgments are
not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on the
ground that the documents filed by the party are pertaining to prior to
institution of suit and the party has not given reasons in the said
application. In those circumstances, this Court held that in the
absence of any explanation/reasons, the party is not entitled to seek
relief to receive the documents. In case on hand, the documents filed
by the plaintiff along with application are subsequent to institution of
suit. Though the plaintiff has not specifically stated the reasons
about relevancy of the documents, the plaintiff averred that the
documents are pertaining to the suit schedule property and the same
are relevant to prove his claim in the suit.
14. It is very much relevant to place on record that in Mr.
Anjaneyulu vs. R. Subramanyam Achary 6, the Hon'ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held that even though the reasons put
forth by the party for the delay in filing the proposed documents is
vague, it may certainly have a bearing on his defence in the suit.
Moreover, those documents were sought to be produced before the
commencement of the cross-examination of the respondent/plaintiff.
2012(5) ALD23
JSR, J
Therefore, the respondent will certainly have an opportunity of
explaining the nature of those documents if they are put to him in the
cross examination. Hence, the lower Court ought to have permitted
the petitioner therein to produce the documents in question.
15. It is also relevant to place on record that in Sugandhi (Dead) by
L.Rs and Ors. Vs. P. Rajkumar 7 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed
that the Procedure is the hand maid 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 and further held that Court 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) of Rule 14 of Order
VII of C.P.C.
16. It is also relevant to place on record that in Levaku Pedda
Reddamma and Ors. Vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma and
Ors. 8 Hon'ble Apex Court held that the trial Court as well as High
Court have gravely erred in law in not permitting the defendants to
(2020)10 SCC 706
Civil Appeal No. 4096 of 2022 (@SLP (C)No. 7452/2022
JSR, J
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 principle of law that rules of
procedure are hand-maid 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. Consequently,
the appeal is allowed and orders passed by the trial Court as well as
High Court are set aside and the appellants/defendants are permitted
to file the documents and to prove the same in accordance with law.
17. It is further relevant to place on record that in Sirugudi
Adinarayana v. Bodla Mariamma 9, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad held that as per Order VIII Rule 1 (3) and Order XIII Rule 2
of Civil Procedure Code 1908, discretion is conferred upon the Court
to receive the document in evidence even at the hearing of the
suit, with the leave granted by Court, to receive the documents and
question of admissibility and relevancy of the documents can be
decided by the Court not at the stage of granting leave, but at the
stage of hearing.
18. It is already stated supra that basing on the documents filed
along with application whether plaintiff can claim any rights over the
scheduled property and whether the said documents are relevant for
2004 (1) ALD 440
JSR, J
adjudication of the dispute between the parties, those aspects can be
gone into at the subsequent stages and that stage has not yet
reached, so far and by virtue of receiving the documents filed along
with application no prejudice is going to be caused to the defendant
No.1. It is also relevant to mention here that plaintiff has also not
diligent in prosecuting the case and not filed application as soon as
after receiving the documents. Hence, this Court of the view that the
plaintiff has to pay costs to defendant no.1.
19. For the foregoing reasons as well as precedent decisions, this
Court while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction conferred under
Article 227 of Constitution of India, Civil Revision Petition is allowed
and the impugned order, dated 01.08.2023, passed by the Court
below in I.A.No.190 of 2023 in O.S.No.123 of 2016 is set aside.
Accordingly, I.A. No.190 of 2023 stands allowed subject to condition
of payment of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards costs to
defendant No.1 within a period of two(2) weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
Miscellaneous application pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________
J.SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 28.03.2024
L.R. copy to be marked - Yes.
mar
