Telangana High Court

Mukarram Jah Trust For Education And ... vs Nawab Najaf Ali Khan on 29 October, 2024

            THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL


      CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3246 AND 3267 OF 2024

COMMON ORDER:

Since both the matters are arising out of same suit, on the

joint request of the parties, they were analogously heard and are

being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner herein is defendant No.1, respondent No.1

herein is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein are

defendant Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.3765 of 2023 pending on the file

of the Court of XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

(for short, trial Court). For the sake of convenience, the parties

hereinafter shall be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief facts giving rise to these matters are that the

plaintiff filed O.S.No.3765 of 2023 seeking declaration of the trust

deed bearing document No.4117/1971 and lease deeds bearing

document Nos.1902/2018 and 830/2019 as illegal and null and

void. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.543 of 2024 seeking

a direction to defendant No.1 to deposit the rents collected by him

to the credit of the suit from the date of filing of the suit. Further,

the plaintiff filed I.A.No.628 of 2024 in I.A.No.543 of 2024 under

Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 of CPC to receive

SP, J CRPs_3246 & 3267_2024

additional documents. The plaintiff also filed I.A.No.629 of 2024

in I.A.No.628 of 2024 in I.A.No.543 of 2024 under Section 65 (a)

and (c) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of

CPC to permit him to lead secondary evidence. The trial Court

allowed both the aforesaid applications vide separate orders dated

22.08.2024. The order passed in I.A.No.628 of 2024 is subject

matter of challenge in CRP No.3267 of 2024, whereas the order

passed in I.A.No.629 of 2024 is subject matter of challenge in CRP

No.3246 of 2024.

CRP No.3267 of 2024:

4. In I.A.No.628 of 2024, the plaintiff prayed to receive as much

as 11 documents. After filing counter, the trial Court allowed the

said application.

5. Sri A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioner/defendant No.1, criticizing the order in I.A.No.628 of

2024, raised singular contention and submitted that the said

application was filed after filing of the plaint. No iota of reason

was assigned as to why the said documents could not be filed

along with the plaint. In absence of assigning reasons, the trial

Court should not have mechanically allowed the said application.

SP, J CRPs_3246 & 3267_2024

In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgments

of this Court in Chowdari Rajesham v. Chowdari Lingaiah 1,

Gugilla Narayana v. The District Collector, Karimnagar 2 and a

judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Ravi

Satish v. Edala Durga Prasad 3.

6. Sri Mohammed Adnan, learned counsel for respondent

No.1/plaintiff, supported the impugned order and urged that the

said application was filed before commencement of trial and before

framing of issues. Thus, singular objection raised by the learned

Senior Counsel is hyper technical in nature. Even written

statement has not been filed by the defendants and hence, no

prejudice is caused to the defendants. In support of his

submission, he placed reliance on the judgments of Supreme

Court in Levaku Pedda Reddamma v. Gottumukkala Venkata

Subbamma 4 and N.C. Bansal v. Uttar Pradesh Financial

Corporation 5 and judgment of High Court of Judicature,

(2019) 5 ALT 226

MANU/TL/2486/2022

(2009) 3 ALT 236

2022 LiveLaw (SC) 533

AIR 2018 SC 685

SP, J CRPs_3246 & 3267_2024

Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Datti Kameswari

v. Marrapu Lakshmunaidu 6.

FINDINGS:

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1

has not disputed the contention of other side that the documents

were filed before commencement of trial. It is also not in dispute

that document Nos.(v) to (vii) were obtained under the Right to

Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) and document Nos.(x) and (xi) are

originals. A plain reading of IA shows that the plaintiff has shown

the relevance of the said documents. The parties are at

loggerheads solely on the question raised by learned Senior

Counsel that reasons for delay are not mentioned. No doubt, this

Court in Chowdari Rajesham (supra), Gugilla Narayana (supra)

and High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Ravi Satish

(supra), opined that the reasons should have been assigned

justifying failure of the plaintiff in not filing the documents along

with the plaint. However, the Apex Court in Levaku Pedda

Reddamma (supra) held as under:

" 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

2016 (2) ALD 31

SP, J CRPs_3246 & 3267_2024

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-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."

8. The Supreme Court in N.C. Bansal (supra) opined as under:

"19. So far as the filing of documents is concerned, this application too should have been allowed on the same grounds on which we have allowed the amendment application. In other words, when the suit is still at its initial stage and the trial is yet to begin and when the documents filed are alleged to be that of the respondents themselves having obtained through RTI, there is no reason why the appellant (plaintiff) be not allowed to file them."

(Emphasis Supplied)

9. A conjoint reading of the judgments of Supreme Court in

Levaku Pedda Reddamma (supra) and N.C. Bansal (supra) shows

that if the documents are sought to be filed before commencement

of trial after obtaining the documents under the RTI Act, there

seems to be no justification in not taking those documents on

record. In view of above view of Apex Court, judgments of High

Court relied upon by defendant will not improve his case. In view

of these pronouncements, the view taken by the trial Court in

I.A.No.628 of 2024 cannot be said to be illegal or without

jurisdiction. Hence, the present CRP cannot be entertained and is

liable to be dismissed.

SP, J CRPs_3246 & 3267_2024

CRP No.3246 of 2024:

10. The singular ground of attack in this case by learned Senior

Counsel is that the secondary evidence may be given with regard

to existence, condition or contents of a document when the

original is shown or appears to be in possession or power against

whom the document is sought to be produced, or of any person

out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of

any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice

mentioned in Section 66 of the Evidence Act, such person does

not produce it. It is trite that for secondary evidence to be

admitted, foundational evidence has to be given being the reason

as to why original evidence has not been furnished. Since the

plaintiff has not specified these conditions, the documents

obtained under the RTI Act cannot be treated to be secondary

evidence. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the

judgment of Supreme Court in Jagmail Singh v. Karamjit

Singh 7.

11. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff raised almost

similar contentions which were raised in CRP No.3267 of 2024.

He submits that the suit is at the initial stage. By placing reliance

(2020) 5 SCC 178

SP, J CRPs_3246 & 3267_2024

on the judgment in Datti Kameswari (supra), it is submitted that

true copies of public documents certified by a designated

information officer can be taken as certified copies of public

documents. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Supreme

Court in Dhanpat v. Sheo Ram (Deceased) through LRs. 8

wherein it was held that the documents against which objection is

raised can be permitted to be marked tentatively as exhibits

subject to such objections to be decided at later stage. The similar

view taken by this Court in CRP No.3688 of 2016, dated

15.04.2021 and CRP Nos.3126 and 3128 of 2022, dated

23.02.2024 is also relied upon.

FINDINGS:

12. The parties have taken a diametrically opposite stand on

marking the documents. The only point canvassed is no more res

integra. In Dhanpat (supra), the Supreme Court opined as under:

20. This Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat (2001) 3 SCC 1, deprecated the practice in respect of the admissibility of any material evidence, where the Court does not proceed further without passing order on such objection. It was held that all objections raised shall be decided by the Court at the final stage. The Court held as under:

AIR 2020 SC 2666

SP, J CRPs_3246 & 3267_2024

"14. When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence-taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed.)

15. The above procedure, if followed, will have two advantages.

First is that the time in the trial court, during evidence-taking stage, would not be wasted on account of raising such objections and the court can continue to examine the witnesses. The witnesses need not wait for long hours, if not days. Second is that the superior court, when the same objection is recanvassed and reconsidered in appeal or revision against the final judgment of the trial court, can determine the correctness of the view taken by the trial court regarding that objection, without bothering to remit the case to the trial court again for fresh disposal. We may also point out that this measure would not cause any prejudice to the parties to the litigation and would not add to their misery or expenses."

(Emphasis Supplied)

13. Similar view is taken by this Court in CRP No.3688 of 2016,

dated 15.04.2021 and CRP Nos.3126 and 3128 of 2022, dated

23.02.2024.

14. A careful reading of judgment of the Supreme Court in

Dhanpat (supra) shows that it is based upon the previous

SP, J CRPs_3246 & 3267_2024

judgment in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat 9. If the

order of the trial Court in I.A.No.629 of 2024 is tested on the anvil

of the judgments of the Supreme Court which were followed by

this Court, it will be clear like noon day that the trial Court has

taken a plausible view. The trial Court has recorded its