Telangana High Court

Smt. Telu Laxmi vs Srimalla Shivashankar on 10 January, 2025

Author: G.Radha Rani

Bench: G.Radha Rani

         THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

             CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4026 of 2024


ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners - defendants

aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the learned Principal District

& Sessions Judge at Sangareddy in I.A.No.2076 of 2024 in O.S.No.216 of 2019

dismissing the petition filed by them under Order VIII Rule 1-A(iii) of CPC to

receive the documents.

2. Heard Sri Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri

S.Chandra Shekar, learned counsel for the respondent - plaintiff.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent -

plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money of Rs.23,00,000/- with interest @

12 % on the said amount. The respondent - plaintiff was none other than their

son-in-law. Disputes arose between their daughter and their son-in-law

(respondent - plaintiff). Due to which, cases were filed by them against each

other. The respondent - plaintiff filed a false suit for recovery of money

fabricating a document shown as promissory note. The petitioners - defendants

never signed on the alleged promissory note. They filed their written statement

contending that the signature of defendant No.1 on the promissory note was

Dr.GRR, J crp_4026_2024

forged. They also contended that the respondent - plaintiff was not having

financial capacity to pay the said amount. The petitioners' family was well

settled having movable and immovable properties in Bibipet Village and that

the question of approaching the respondent - plaintiff seeking financial

assistance would not arise. When the respondent - plaintiff was harassing their

daughter for sake of additional dowry, they themselves paid an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- to the plaintiff and transferred the said amount to his account.

Only to see that the criminal and civil cases filed against him are withdrawn, the

respondent - plaintiff filed the speculative suit to harass the defendants. To

prove that they paid the amount to the respondent - plaintiff at the time of

marriage through bank transaction and transferred some amount in the name of

Srimalla Dhanalaxmi, the sister of the respondent - plaintiff, the petitioners

intended to file their bank statements. But the trial court dismissed the same on

the ground that it was a new plea and the same was not taken in the written

statement filed by them. Mere non-filing of the documents along with the

written statement would not disentitle to file the document at a later stage. The

petitioners have taken a pleading with regard to payment of amount to the

account of the plaintiff in written statement at Para No.13. The documents

sought to receive were crucial to strengthen their case and prayed to set aside

the impugned order and to direct the trial court to receive the said documents

Dr.GRR, J crp_4026_2024

and relied upon the Single Bench judgment of this Court in Pusala Venkat

Reddy v. Pusala Sanga Reddy in C.R.P.No.1251 of 2022 dated 24.08.2022.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent - plaintiff on the other hand

contended that the respondent - plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of amount

basing on a promissory note that the petitioners - defendants borrowed an

amount of Rs.23,00,000/- from the respondent - plaintiff and executed the

promissory note, but failed to re-pay the same. The defence taken by the

petitioners - defendants in their written statement was that there was no capacity

to respondent - plaintiff to lend such amount and further that they did not

receive any amount and did not execute the promissory note. Nowhere, it was

stated in their pleadings that they have paid the amount into the account of the

sister of respondent - plaintiff, as contended by them. The petitioner could not

come with a new plea and defence. The alleged payment to the sister of the

respondent - plaintiff as per the bank statements was earlier to the date of

promissory note. Thereby, it could not be said that it was a relevant document.

The petitioners could not introduce a new plea, which was not permissible.

There were no bonafides on the part of the petitioners and no merits in the

petition. As such, the trial court rightly dismissed the same and prayed to

dismiss the CRP.

Dr.GRR, J crp_4026_2024

5. On a perusal of the record and the written statement filed by the

petitioners - defendants, the petitioners - defendants in their written statement at

Para No.13 contended that the daughter of the defendants during the time of her

pregnancy faced harassment by the plaintiff and his mother and his sister by

name Dhanalaxmi physically and mentally. Unable to see the suffering of their

daughter, the defendant No.2 paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the plaintiff by

way of transfer of amount to his account and that the same was credited to the

account of the plaintiff and the plaintiff had withdrawn the same.

6. But the present petition was filed to show that they have transferred some

amount to the account of Srimalla Dhanalaxmi (sister of the plaintiff). The trial

court rightly pointed out that there was no plea in the written statement filed by

the petitioners - defendants that they made payment to the sister of the plaintiff

and also pointed out that as per the pleadings of the plaintiff, the defendants

borrowed the amount on 15.04.2017, but the alleged payment to the sister of the

respondent - plaintiff as per the bank statements sought to receive was dated

16.03.2017, which was much earlier to the date of promissory note. Thereby, it

could not be said that it was a relevant document.

7. Under Order VIII Rule 1-A of CPC, it was the duty of the defendant to

produce the documents relied by him along with the written statement. Under

sub-rule 3 of Rule 1-A of CPC, a document which ought to be presented in the

Dr.GRR, J crp_4026_2024

Court by the defendant, which was not produced, shall not, without the leave of

the Court be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. For

granting leave for receiving such document, the defendant has to show

sufficient cause. It was also a settled position of law that what constitutes a

sufficient cause would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case

and no straight jacket formula could be evolved in all the cases.

8. Learned Single Judge of this Court in Pusala Venkat Reddy v. Pusala

Sanga Reddy extracted the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra

Pradesh in John Santiyago and others v. Clement Dass [4. 2914(2) ALD

184], wherein it was held that:

"It is well settled principle that in case 'sufficient cause' is shown for filing the documents at the hearing of the suit and/or at the end of the trial, such cause shown should receive a liberal construction so as to advance the cause of substantial justice, more particularly when the documents sought to be filed, in the opinion of the court, are relevant and may have bearing on the aspects to be taken into consideration for the determination of the real controversy and the principal issue/s involved in the matter/suit. And what constitutes a sufficient cause always depends upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Hence, the application need not be rejected merely on the ground of delay/long delay, but the test shall be whether sufficient cause is made out for the delay."

9. The document must be relevant and must be helpful in determining the

principle issues involved in the matter / suit to receive the same even at a

belated stage. As the alleged bank statements sought to be filed by the

petitioners - defendants are pertaining to the period prior to the alleged receipt

of amount by them, they are not relevant to decide the issue whether the

Dr.GRR, J crp_4026_2024

petitioners - defendants borrowed the amount from the respondent - plaintiff by

executing a promissory note or not. As such, the trial court rightly rejected the

petition. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error committed by the trial

court in passing the impugned order.

10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order

passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Sangareddy in