Mandadi Anantha Reddy vs Mandadi Alias Chada Venkatamma
2024 Latest Caselaw 995 Tel

Telangana High Court

Mandadi Anantha Reddy vs Mandadi Alias Chada Venkatamma on 7 March, 2024

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

     CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3299 of 2023

ORDER:

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and

learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the

material on record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the

order dated 23.08.2023 passed in I.A.No.75 of 2023 in

O.S.No.108 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Bhongir, whereunder the petition

filed by the petitioners/defendants herein for receiving of

documents was dismissed.

3. The petitioners herein are the defendants and

the respondent herein is the plaintiff before the Trial

Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein

are referred to as arrayed before the trial court.

4. The plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.108 of 2018

before the Trial Court for partition and separate

possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. In

the said suit the defendants have filed I.A.No.75 of 2023

under Order VIII Rule IA of C.P.C read with Section 151

of C.P.C, to receive the document dated 16.12.1979,

which was said to have misplaced at the time of filing ::2::

written statement and since it was traced requested the

trial court, but the trial court refused to receive the same

on the ground that the said document was filed at the

belated stage in order to drag on the suit. Aggrieved by

the same, the petitioners/defendants preferred the

present Civil Revision Petition.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners/defendants

submits that in the written statement it was mentioned

that at the time of marriage of respondent/plaintiff

certain amounts, gold and other house hold articles were

given to her towards pasupu kunkuma and to that extent

a document was also executed on 16.12.1979 and the

same was attested by one Rathna Reddy. Since the said

document could not be traced at the time of filing written

statement, it could not be filed and as it is traced they

filed in the Court and requested the Court to set aside

the impugned order and allow the Civil Revision Petition.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners/

defendants in support of his contention placed the

reliance on the Judgment passed by the Supreme

Court in Sugandhi (dead) Vs. P.Raj Kumar 1.

2020 (10) SCC 706 ::3::

Relevant portion of the said Judgment in Para No.9 is

as follows:

"9. 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)".

7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the

respondent/plaintiff submits that the alleged document

dated 16.12.1979 is irrelevant and inadmissible under

law. The Trial Court rightly dismissed the petition filed

by the petitioners/defendants and there are no

grounds in the revision and requested to dismiss the

petition.

8. After hearing both sides and perusing the

records, this Court is of the considered view that the

petitioners herein are defendants in O.S.No.108 of

2018 and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit.

The respondent herein filed suit for partition and ::4::

separate possession in respect of the suit schedule

property under Order 7 Rule 1 read with Section 26 of

CPC. The petitioners herein filed I.A.No.75 of 2023 in

O.S.No.108 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Bhongiri for receiving of

the document dated 16.12.1979.

9. The contention of the petitioners is that the

document filed with petition was misplaced at the time

of written statement and it was traced out and also the

said fact is stated in the written statement. The Court

below without considering the same has passed the

impugned order. In view of the same, the Trial Court

can receive the documents at any stage of the case.

10. On the other hand, it is the contention of the

respondent that the contention raised by the

petitioners is not tenable and only to drag on the

proceedings, filed the petitions to receive the alleged

document.

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

Vs. P.Raj Kumar (Supra 1) held that the procedure is

the handmaid of justice and that the Court should take

lenient view when an application is made for ::5::

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

Rule 3 of CPC.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Levaku Pedda

Reddamma Vs. Gottumukkala Venkata

Subbamma 2 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 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 handmade 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".

13. The above Judgments were followed by this

Court in S.Hanumakka Vs. Boya Chinthalaiah 3.

Unreported judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court

date 17.05.2022.

2023 SCC Online TS 1037 ::6::

14. In the instant case, the petitioners assigned

cogent reason for not producing the document at the

time of written statement. They have stated that the

said document was missing and was only traced at a

later stage. It cannot be disputed that those document

is necessary for arriving at a just decision. Therefore,

the Trial Court ought to have allowed the petitions.

15. It is a settles law that mere receiving the

documents would not cause any prejudice to the other

side. The relevancy of the documents can be examined

by the Trial Court on the basis of evidence to be lead in

the case. The Trial Court has to take a lenient view for

receiving of documents and the document has to be

examined after concluding to trial basing on the

evidence. Therefore, the impugned order dated

23.08.2023 passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set

aside and the petition filed by the petitioners has to be

allowed.

16. In view of the above facts and circumstances,

the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside

the impugned order dated 23.08.2023 passed in

I.A.No.75 of 2023 in O.S.No.108 of 2018, consequently,

I.A.No.75 of 2023 in O.S.No.108 of 2018 is hereby ::7::

allowed. Further, the Trial Court is directed to dispose

of the O.S.No.108 of 2018 within six (06) months from

the date receipt of copy of this Order. There shall be

no order as to costs.

17. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall

stand dismissed.

_____________________ JUSTICE K.SARATH Date: 07.03.2024

Spk