Telangana High Court

Karri Gangu Naidu vs Rajula Krishnaiah on 4 April, 2025

Author: P. Sam Koshy

Bench: P. Sam Koshy

      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY

               Civil Revision Petition No.4125 of 2024
ORDER :

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article

227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 10.12.2024

passed in I.A.No.724 of 2024 in O.S.No.25 of 2018 by the Senior

Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Shadnagar (for short 'the

impugned order').

2. Heard Mr.S.Ram Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.K.Ramachandra, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the

material available on record.

3. Vide the impugned order, the trial court has allowed the I.A.

filed by the defendant Nos.3 to 5 under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) read

with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for short

'C.P.C').

4. Vide the impugned order, the trial court has granted leave to the

petitioners to receive documents mentioned in the said I.A.

5. It is relevant at this juncture to mention the fact that the suit

filed by the plaintiff respondent in this case is a suit for declaration.

The defendant Nos.3 to 5 upon notice entered appearance and filed

their written statements, however, along with the written statement or ::2::

at later stage, they did not filed certain documents in support of their

defence. Subsequently, the suit progressed and the plaintiff's evidence

was concluded and thereafter while the defendants' evidence have

commenced, the defendant Nos.3 to 5 before their evidence could be

started moved a petition under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) seeking leave

of the court to produce certain documents.

6. It was specifically contended by the party before the court that

the documents which they intend to bring on record was the certified

copies of documents which were already marked and exhibited in yet

another suit in respect of the very same subject land i.e., in O.S.No.30

of 2016 where the defendant Nos.3 to 5 are infact the plaintiffs and

the said suit is for perpetual injunction.

7. It was this application which stood allowed by the trial court

which is under challenge in the present civil revision petition.

8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner plaintiff

is that the defendant Nos.3 to 5 have not been able to fully justify as

to what prevented them from filing these documents when the written

statement was filed or even before the issues were framed or at an

earlier stage. It was also the contention of the petitioner that though ::3::

these documents marked and exhibited in O.S.No.30 of 2016 but the

petitioners herein were not a party to the said O.S.

9. It was also the contention of the petitioner that in the

application/petition under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) of C.P.C, the

petitioners have not shown any bonafide and justifiable grounds

which necessitated the production of these documents in support of

their defence in the instant suit. Nor has the defendant Nos.3 to5

disclosed the relevance of these documents so far as the suit is

concerned suit filed by the plaintiff is concerned and for all these

reasons, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for quashment of

the order dated 10.12.2024.

10. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the

petitioner relied upon the decision of the High Court of Delhi in the

case of Harkesh Singh v. Ved Raj 1. He also relied upon the decisions

of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of K.N.Sharma v. Mukesh

Kumar Varma2 and in the case of Dinesh Hingar v. Kishanlal 3,

contending that the petition under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) could not

had been allowed by the trial court as a matter of routine without there

2010 SCC Online Del 397.

Civil W.P.No.10843/2015.

Civil W.P.No.1393 of 2024.

::4::

being any justifiable grounds and materials available to shown the

delay that has arisen in filing these documents.

11. At this juncture, what is relevant to be considered is the fact

that the defendant Nos.3 to 5 has already had filed their petition under

Order VIII Rule 1A (3) for ready reference, the said rule is

reproduced herein under:

Rule 1A (3): A document which ought to be produced in Court by defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.

12. The plain reading of the aforesaid provision of law by itself

would clearly reflects that a power has been conferred upon the trial

court in a given circumstances where documents has not been filed by

the defendant along with their written statement or at a later stage can

be filed and the same can also be taken on record with the leave of the

court.

13. Thus, what is apparent is that documents which have not been

filed till that stage can also be filed, however, it can only be filed with

the leave of the court. It is this leave which the defendant Nos.3 to 5

has sought for in the instant case vide I.A.No.724 of 2024 which

stood allowed.

::5::

14. Another facts which needs appreciation is that all the

documents which they intend to bring on record is the documents

certified copies that was obtained recently and they are part of the

records of a suit which already stands decided by the very same court

in O.S.No.30 of 2016.

15. Lastly, what is necessary to be considered is that fact that the

trial court itself while allowing I.A.No.724 of 2024 has protected the

right of the petitioner/plaintiff to cross examine the defendant Nos.3

to 5 in respect of these very documents which they have now filed at

the time of the cross examination.

16. Further, the trial court also has reached to the conclusion that

except for the fact that these documents have been brought on record

at a belated stage, the plaintiff have not been able to show a

substantive prejudice that would be cause to the interest of the

plaintiff, in the event, if these documents being taken on record. The

court also finds that evidence of defendant Nos.3 to 5 has not

commenced and therefore also the application could be allowed.

17. As regards the three judgments which have been cited by the

petitioners, a bare perusal of those three judgments would

undoubtedly make it clear that there is no dispute so far as the power ::6::

which is bestowed upon the trial court to accept the documents which

was not produced earlier or which has been produced at a later stage

with the leave of the court.

18. Thus, there is an element of discretion which have been left

upon the trial court to consider and decide whether these documents

have to be accepted or not.

19. It is this discretionary power which the trial court has exercised

giving liberty to the petitioner/plaintiff to cross examine the parties in

respect of these documents as and when the defendant Nos.3 to 5 rely

on the same in their evidence.

20. In the said circumstances, the judgment cited by the learned

counsel for the petitioner cannot be applied in a straight jacket

formula to the facts of the present case.

21. This Court also do not find any jurisdictional error or any

perversity in the finding given by the trial court in allowing the