Telangana High Court
Alla Ramchandram Died Per Lrs P2 To P8 vs Alla Lakshmikantham Died on 30 January, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITON NO.2127 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order
dated 21.06.2024 in I.A.No.563 of 2024 in O.S.No.2 of 2019 passed
by the Principal District Judge at Jagtial.
2. Heard Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri J.Kanakaiah, learned senior counsel
representing Sri Narendar Jalli, learned counsel for respondents
on record.
3. The petitioner No.1 herein is the defendant (died) (his LRs
i.e., petitioners 2 to 8 were brought on record); respondent Nos.1
to 4 are the plaintiffs before the trial Court. For convenience,
hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the
suit.
4. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present Civil
Revision Petition are that the plaintiff No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.2
of 2019 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at
Jagtial for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule
LNA,J
properties. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the brother and sister,
respectively, of the plaintiff No.1. It is contended that originally
properties were purchased by their father late Muthi Ramulu in
the name of their mother viz., Alla Devamma and their father
died in the year 1962 and their mother died in the year 1999 and
the plaintiff No.1 claimed half share of the schedule properties..
It is contended that defendant No.1, who worked as District
Revenue Officer, taking advantage of his official position, got all
the properties transferred and recorded in the name of his wife
i.e., Alla Sathyamma. During pendency of the suit, plaintiff No.1
expired and his legal heirs i.e., plaintiffs 2 to 4 were brought on
record.
5. During the pendency of the suit, legal heirs of plaintiff
No.1 i.e., plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 filed I.A.No.563 of 2024 praying the
trial Court to receive certain documents i.e., postal receipts, by
which father of plaintiffs Alla Laxmikantham sent money orders
to his mother Alla Devamma and postal acknowledgment
receipts of Alla Devamma, which pertains to the years 1993-94
along with attested copy of Memo issued by the Dy.Tahsildar,
LNA,J
Jagtial dated 31.10.2017. In the said application, plaintiff Nos.2 to
4 contended that during the pendency of the suit, their father Alla
Laxmikantham died and during his life time, he used to send
money through money orders to his mother Alla Devamma for
her miscellaneous expenditure and now they secured the money
order receipts, acknowledgement receipts of Allla Devamma and
the Memo issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Jagtial. It is contended
that those documents are very important to show that their father
took care of his mother during his life time.
6. The defendants filed counter and contended that trial has
been commenced in the suit and P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined
and DW.1 was also examined and when the matter was coming
up for cross-examination of DW.1, plaintiffs filed I.A.No.563 of
2024 to receive the documents belatedly. The defendants resisted
the said application on the ground that the said documents are
not filed along with the plaint and there was no whisper about
those documents in the plaint and, therefore, the same cannot be
permitted to file at this stage that too at the stage of cross-
LNA,J
examination of DW.1 after completion of evidence on behalf of
the plaintiffs.
7. The trial Court, vide order dated 21.06.2024 allowed the
said application with an observation that documents sought to be
filed are money orders of the year 1993-94 and the Memo issued
by the Deputy Tahsildar is also of the year 2017 and, therefore,
there is no scope for plaintiffs to create those documents to make
up their case. The trial Court further observed that non-
mentioning of the documents sought to be produced at a belated
stage is a curable defect with the leave of the Court and allowed
the application. Aggrieved by the impugned order, present
revision petition is filed.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs contended
that in the plaint filed by the plaintiffs, there is no pleading that
the father of the plaintiffs used to send money orders to his
mother - Alla Devamma and in the absence of any pleading in the
plaint, the documents now sought to be filed cannot be permitted
to file. It is further contended that the application to receive
documents was filed are after completion of evidence on behalf of
LNA,J
plaintiffs and when the matter is coming up for cross-
examination of DW.1 and application is filed only to fill up the
lacunae, which is impermissible. It is further contended that no
reasons are assigned as to why those documents could not be
filed at the time of filing the suit and it is settled principle of law
that unless sufficient cause is shown for not filing the documents,
the Court normally should not permit a party to file the
documents.
9. In support of his contention, learned counsel for petitioners
placed reliance on the judgment of the learned single Judge of
erstwhile High Court of A.P., in Union of India v. Y.S. Hi-Tech
Secure Print Pvt. Ltd.,Hyderabad 1; the decision of learned single
Judge of High Court of A.P., at Amaravathi in Kottakota
Lakkappa and others v. B.Lakkappagari Chikkaiah and others 2,
wherein the learned single Judge held that unless sufficient cause
is shown for non-filing of the document sought to be filed by a
party cannot be permitted by way of mere asking. Learned single
Judge further observed that adequate reasons for justifying the
2010 (6) ALD 430
2023 (5) ALD 579 (AP)
LNA,J
delay of non-filing of the documents have to be shown for
permitting the party to file documents.
10. Per contra, learned senior counsel for respondents/
plaintiffs contended that it is a specific case of plaintiffs that
defendant No.1 taking advantage of his official position as
District Revenue Officer, has got the properties transferred and
got recorded the name of his wife in the records with a mala fide
intention to grab the suit schedule properties, thereby depriving
the right of the plaintiffs to the schedule properties and to that
effect, there is clear pleading in paragraph-10 of the plaint.
11. Learned senior counsel further contended that once
documents are taken on record, the defendants can cross-examine
the witnesses on the said documents and, therefore, no prejudice
would be caused to the defendants if the documents sought to be
filed are taken on record. Learned senior counsel further
submitted that during the pendency of the suit, plaintiff No.1
expired in the year 2022 and his legal heirs were brought on
record and the application to receive documents i.e., I.A.No.563
of 2024 was filed by the legal heirs of the plaintiff No.1 when they
LNA,J
came to know of the documents. It is further contended that
during the life time of their father i.e., plaintiff no.1, their father
used to send the money to his mother, Alla Devamma, through
money orders. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly allowed the
application and finally, contended that no grounds are made out
to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the trial
Court.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs has placed
reliance on the judgment of the learned single Judge of erstwhile
High Court of A.P., in John Santiyago and others v. Clememt
Dass and others 3, wherein the learned single Judge held as
under:
"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
applications 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. "
2014 (3) ALT 83 (S.B.)
LNA,J
13. Perusal of the record would disclose that originally,
plaintiff No.1 filed the suit for partition and during the pendency
of the suit, he expired in the year 2022 and his legal heirs were
brought on record and they filed I.A.No.563 of 2024 to receive
certain documents i.e., money order receipts, acknowledgments
and Memo issued by the Tahsildar, Jagtial, dated 31.10.2017.
14. It is true that no reasons have been mentioned for the delay
in the application filed by the legal heirs of plaintiff No.1 to
receive documents, however, taking into consideration the fact
that originally suit was filed by the plaintiff No.1 and his legal
heirs were brought on record and immediately, the application to
receive documents was filed by the legal heirs. It is also relevant
to refer to the observations of the trial Court that documents
sought to be filed are the money orders pertains to the years 1993
and 1994 and the Memo issued by the Deputy Tahsildar is of the
year 2017 and, therefore, there is no scope for the plaintiffs to
create those documents. Further, as rightly pointed out by the
learned senior counsel for plaintiffs, no prejudice would be
caused to the defendants and the defendants can cross-examine
LNA,J
the witnesses and also can challenge the documents as to the
aspect of relevancy.
15. In a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Levaku Pedda Reddamma and others v. Gottumukkala Venkata
Subbamma and another 4, the Hon'ble Apex Court 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
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."
16. Therefore, taking into consideration, in view of peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case i.e., after the death of plaintiff
No.1, application is being filed by his legal heirs and the legal
position, this Court is of the considered view that impugned
order passed by the trial Court does not require interference by
this Court and the revision petition is deserved to be dismissed.
2022 Livelaw (SC) 533
LNA,J
Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date: 30.01.2025
Kkm
