Telangana High Court
Smt Amruthamma vs Smt Satyamma on 28 January, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2992 OF 2024
O R D E R:
This Revision is directed against the docket order
dated 13.08.2024 in I.A.No. 106 of 2024 in O.S.No. 45 of 2015
on the file of the Principal District Judge's Court at Vikarabad.
2. Respondents herein are plaintiffs who filed the
mentioned suit for partition and separate possession of suit
schedule items 1 to 3 landed properties and the said suit is now
under trail. Petitioners - defendants had taken out the subject
Application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151
CPC to receive certified copy of gift deed Doc.No. 64/1351 F by
condoning the delay that was caused in filing the document. In
the said Application, it is stated that the case of plaintiffs is that
late Anjan Reddy succeeded the suit lands from his father
Hanmanth Reddy, and defendants had stated that they stated
in the written statement that Anjan Reddy being the absolute
owner of suit land, he conveyed all his rights under gift
settlement deed and the sale deed and they filed the documents
executed by Late Anjan Reddy in their favour and they came to
know recently the suit lands were the absolute property of one
Smt. Laxmamma who is sister of Anjan Reddy's father and the
said Laxmamma performed marriage of Anjan Reddy with her
duaghter Buchamma; after marriage, Buchamma died and she
was looked after by Anjan Reddy and the said Laxmamma
during her lifetime gifted the suit lands to Anjan Reddy under
registered gift deed Document No. 64/1351F and recently they
obtained certified copy of gift deed executed by Laxmamma in
favour of Anjan Reddy.
The said document being crucial and it is a link
document to conveyance deed and transfers made by Anjan
Reddy in their favour and the said document reveals that suit
lands are not ancestral properties in the hands of Anjan Reddy
and since they do not know about the said document at the
time of filing the written statement, they could not file the same
and their failure to file the same is not intentional.
3. Plaintiffs filed counter to the said Application
stating that the alleged gift deed is entirely outside the pleadings
of the defendants and there is literally no mention of the said
document in the entire written statement, hence, the same is
inadmissible in evidence.
4. Learned District Judge in the order under Revision
observed that from the material on record, it is manifest that
certified copy of the document was obtained by defendants on
25.11.2023 but the present Application was filed on
07.02.2024; a perusal of the averments of the written statement
filed by defendants in the suit shows that there is no reference
about the said document under which late Anjan Reddy stated
to have succeeded to the suit lands. The learned Judge relying
on the judgment of this Court in Kyatham Rajkumar v.
Vaddepalli Rajamani (2023(5) ALD 530 (TS), wherein it was
held that in the absence of any foundation with regard to a
document in the pleadings, such document cannot be received
at a belated stage, held that the said document, at this stage,
cannot be received on behalf of defendants where there is no
pleading with reference to the same in the written statement,
and thus dismissed the Application.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners - defendants
Sri Koppula Gopal submits primarily that Court below ought to
have seen that his clients have stated specially in their written
statement that suit schedule lands are not ancestral properties
of late Anjan Reddy and the said Anjan Reddy is the absolute
owner and possessor of said lands. According to him, Court
below failed to see that in fact at the time of filing the written
statement, they are not aware of the registered gift deed and
recently a copy was obtained which was executed by
Laxmamma in favour of Anjan Reddy; that itself clearly
indicates that suit schedule lands are not ancestral property of
late Anjan Reddy.
6. Sri Rakesh Sanghi, learned counsel for respondents
- plaintiffs submits that there is no error in the order under
Revision, hence the same is liable to be dismissed. He relied on
the judgment in Kyatham Rajkumar's case (supra) to submit
that defendants can be permitted to file documents which were
not filed along with the written statement with the leave of the
Court. The Court is having discretion to grant leave to the
defendant. At the same time, the discretion conferred upon the
Court to grant such leave is to be exercised judiciously. There
is no straightjacket formulae to grant leave by the Court on good
cause being shown by the defendant. Thus, the Court has to
exercise power conferred on it under Order VIII Rule 1(A)
judiciously.
7. In the light of the pleadings and contentions
canvased by both the parties, there is no necessity for this
Court to go into the merits of the case. Suffice, to have a
cursory look at Rule 1 A of Order VII C.P.C. which provides the
procedure for production of documents by the defendants which
is as under:
" 1A: Duty of defendant to produce documents upon
which relief is claimed or relied upon by him.-
(1) Where the defendant bases his defence upon a
document or relies upon any document in his possession or
power, in support of his defence or claim for set-off or counter-
claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce
it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and
shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof,
to be filled with the written statement.
(2) Where any such document is not in the
possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever
possible, state in whose possession or power it is.
(3) A document which ought to be produced in
Court by the 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.
.........."
8. Sub-rule (1) mandates the defendants to produce
the documents in their possession before the Court and file the
same along with written statement. They must list out the
documents which are in their possession or power as well as
those which are not. In case defendants do not file any
document or copy thereof along with written statement, such a
document shall not be allowed to be received in evidence on
their behalf at the hearing of the suit. However, this will not
apply to a document produced for cross- examination of
plaintiff's witnesses or handed over to a witness merely to
refresh his memory. Sub-rule (3) states that a document which
is not produced at the time of filing the written statement, shall
not be received in evidence except with the leave of the court.
Rule (1) of Order 13 of C.P.C. again makes it mandatory for the
parties to produce their original documents before settlement of
issues. Sub-rule (3), as quoted above, provides a second
opportunity to defendants to produce the documents which
ought to have been produced in the Court along with written
statement, with the leave of the court. The discretion conferred
upon the Court to grant such leave is to be exercised
judiciously. While there is no straight jacket formula, this leave
can be granted by the Court on a good cause being shown.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases,
has reiterated that 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).
10. In view of the afore-extracted provision of law and
the precedent set out by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the only issue
to be decided is whether defendants have taken the plea earlier
in the written statement or not. From a perusal of the written
statement annexed as material papers, at page 30, it is
manifestly clear that defendants mentioned as 'In fact, the suit
properties are the exclusive properties of late Anjan Reddy and
he alienated and gifted the suit properties during his life time to
defendants and the names of defendants are also mutated in
revenue records during the life time of late Anjan Reddy and the
defendants are in exclusive possession of the suit lands since
long time and plaintiffs are having knowledge of the same and
they are knowledge about the exclusive possession of defendants
over the suit lands. The defendants are in exclusive possession
over the suit land, Sy.No. 163, to an extent Ac.10.03 gts. and
Sy.No. 134, to an extent Ac.14.08 gts., since 1983 with the
knowledge of the plaintiffs, likewise, the defendant No.2 and 3
are in exclusive possession of the suit land, Sy.No. 158 to an
extent of Acs.10.05 gts., since 1994 and the possession of
defendants is within the knowledge of plaintiffs and plaintiffs
have got no right whatsoever over the suit properties and
plaintiffs never in possession of the suit lands. Hence, it is denied
that plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and father, Anjan Reddy are
enjoyment the suit properties jointly even during the life time of
their father and after his death."
11. In the light of the clear and categorical statement
made by defendants in their written statement, it cannot be said
that there is no pleading with reference to the document in
question. Defendants have filed the subject Application
assigning cogent reason for not producing the document along
with written statement. It cannot be disputed that this
document is necessary for arriving at a just decision in the suit.
This Court therefore, of the view that the learned District Judge
ought to have granted leave to produce the document. The
Order under Revision is therefore, liable to be set aside.
12. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly, allowed,
setting aside the order dated 13.08.2024 in I.A.No 106 of 2024.
Consequently, I.A.No. 106 of 2024 is allowed. No costs.
13. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if
any shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
28th January 2025
ksld
