CRP/2198/2023 of Gousia Begum Vs Nalla Malla Reddy on 29 December 2023

ORDER:

l. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the orderdated.06.07.2023 in I.A. No. 449 of 2023 in O.S. No.453 of 2022(Old. O.S.No. 538 of 2010) by the II Additional Senior CivilJudge, at Malkajgiri, Medchal Matkajgiri District, as being illegaland contrary to settled principles of law.

2. Heard Sri. V. V. Raghavan, Sri. V. V. Raghavan, V. V. Raghavan, Raghavan, leamed counsel appearing forforSri. V. Ranga Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. G.Narender Reddy leamed counsel for the respondent and perusedthe record.

Heard Sri. V. V. Raghavan, Sri. V. V. Raghavan, V. V. Raghavan, Raghavan, leamed counsel appearing forfor

3. Thc pctitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit filed forpctitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit filed foris the plaintiff in the suit filed forthe plaintiff in the suit filed forplaintiff in the suit filed forin the suit filed forthe suit filed forsuit filed forfordeclaration and consequential injunction. The respondent herein isthe defendant in the suit.

Thc pctitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit filed forpctitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit filed foris the plaintiff in the suit filed forthe plaintiff in the suit filed forplaintiff in the suit filed forin the suit filed forthe suit filed forsuit filed forfor

4. The suit was originally suit was originally was originally originally instituted in the year 2010. Thethe year 2010. Theyear 2010. TheTherespondent herein had filed his written statement before the TrialCourt. At the stage of further evidence of the defendant, theRespondcnt herein fited an application under Order VllI Rule 1A

The suit was originally suit was originally was originally originally instituted in the year 2010. Thethe year 2010. Theyear 2010. TheThe of the Code of Civil procedure, I90g (hereinatter refbr.rcd ro as ,the Code') with the following prayer:

"For all the rcasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is pra.,-ed that thisHon'ble Court may be pleased to grant leave to the petition€r/dclbndant itereinto file the Certified Copics of rhe I ) CC of Sale Deed bearing No. 4189 of t992,dt: 11.06.1992,2). Original Sate Deed bearing documenr No. 8125 o[2005, dt:l0.l1.2005, as per list, for the purposc of marking the same on behalf of thepetitioner/defendant herein and be pleased to pass such other order or orders asthis Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstanc€s of the case andin the interest ofjustice.',Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant leave to the petition€r/dclbndant itereinto file the Certified Copics of rhe I ) CC of Sale Deed bearing No. 4189 of t992,dt: 11.06.1992,2). Original Sate Deed bearing documenr No. 8125 o[2005, dt:l0.l1.2005, as per list, for the purposc of marking the same on behalf of thepetitioner/defendant herein and be pleased to pass such other order or orders asthis Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstanc€s of the case andin the interest ofjustice.', The petitioner herein filed her counter opposing the samc.

5. The Court below a{ier hearing both sides, allowed theapplication observing that the documents sought to bc brought onrecord are the title documents of the respondent. Aggricved by thesame the present revision is preferred.

6. Leamed counsel for the petitioner contends that, the courtbelow erroneously allowed the application.despite noticing that theinstant application was filed at the fag-end of the trial; thatsufficient cause was not shown by the respondent for not fiting thedocurnents along with the written statem€nt; and thus grantingleave to the petitioner to produce such documents is contrary to the decision of this Court in Pallepati Narsaiuh and [Ors, ][Vs. ][P.]SaQtanarayona and Orst ,

7. Pct cttntra, learned counsel lor the cttntra, learned counsel lor the learned counsel lor the lor the the [[respondent ][herein]][[herein]]contends that the respondent was unable to [produce the ][documents]in question as they were not traceable; and that if the [respondent ][is]not pernritted to produce the sarne, he shall be [put ]to [grave]prejudice.

Pct cttntra, learned counsel lor the cttntra, learned counsel lor the learned counsel lor the lor the the [[respondent ][herein]][[herein]]

8. I have taken note oftheir respective contentions.9. [t is pcrtinent to note that sub rute [( ]I ) of Rule [I ]A of OrderVIII casts a duty on the defendant to produce the documents on thebasis of which he places reliance at the time of filing the writtenstatement. Sub-rule (2) thereof states that in case any document onwhich reliance is placed is not in the possession or power of thedefendant, he shall speciff where such document lies, Sub-rule [(3)]provides that in a situation where the defendant seeks to produce [a]document which ought to have been filed at the time of filing I 201.9 (5) ALD 411

written statement, the same shall not be allo\\,ed to be rcceived inevidence without the leave olthe Court

10. This Court in Pallepati Narsoioh's case (supra) dealing withan application filed to receive docurnents at a later stagc, hcld thatthe leave to file documents under Order Vll Rule lA(3) of theCode, 1908 can only be granted on fumishing sulficient causejustifring the failure of the defendant to file the said documentsalong with the written staterrent. The relevant observatious are [as]under:

12. In Ravi Satish v. Edala Durga Prasad, MAN U/AP/0716/2009 :2009 [(3)]ALT 236, this Court held as under:

"Sub-rule (3) of Rule [-A of Order VIll [permits ][thc ][documcnls ]to [bc]received only on leave being granted by the Court- Grant of leave [is ][not]for the mere asking. nor is the Court a mere Dost-oflicc to [rcceivc]documents even in the absence of anv reasons bcins [urnished forfailure to file the said documents alons with the written slatemenl.Admittedly, in the case on hand, no reasons [whatsoever ]ltavc [been]fumished by the [petitioner, ]let alone adequate [cause ][becn ][shown ][as ][to]why the documents, which could not be filed earlier [along ][uitlr ][thc]\,r/ritten statement. Having chosen not to givc any [reasons, ][it ][is ][nol ][oPcn to]the petitioner to contend that l.he Court below [should have receivcd ][the]documents, since the [p€titioner's ]right could [be ][adversely ][a[Iected for]failure on its part to [receive the documents. ][While ][it ][is no doubt truc ][that]admissibility and [proof ][of ][docurn€flts are maners ][which ][ought ][not to ][be]gone into at the time of receipt of documents, the fac(, [ltowcvcr,]remains that the lcave [sought ]for can only [bc granted on ][a(lcquate]reasons being furnishcd [justifying ][failure ][on the ][part of ][thc ][applicant]in not filing the documents [aloog ][with ][the ][tvritt€n ][statcmen( ][cadier."]

l3.Counsel for the respondents [also relied ]on [Voruganti ][Narayana ][lLao v. Bodla]Rammurthy, MANU/AP/0468/201 I [: ]201 I (6) ALD [142 ][: ][20t1 ][(6) ]ALT [299. ][In]that cqfl3 also, this Court has taken the vierv that [grant ]of leave under Order V{[[Rule l-Ap) CPC for filing documents belatedly [cannot ][be grantcd ]for [mere]asking and the [Court ][is not ][a mere ][posColfice ][to ][receive ][docurnents t:ven ][in ][the]

(\

abscncc ol any reasons fumished for failure to file the said documents alongwith thc rvlitten statement. [t observed that only if part-v is prevented bycircurnsranccs beyond his control to file the documents along with the writtenstatcrne|t. tlrc Court may consider allowing the defendant to file documentssubseqrrcrrtlr ["]

(entphasis supplied)was reiterated by this Court in I 1 . The atbresaid principleChoutlori Rojeshom Vs. Choudari Lingalaiah antl Ors2,Choutlori Rojeshom Vs. Choudari Lingalaiah antl Ors2,

12. ['l'hc ]I'acts in the present case shall be examined in the light ofthe above stated position of law. It is pertinent to note that thoughthe main suit was instituted in the year 2010, the instant applicationwas only frled at the stage of cross examination of the respondent.Moreover, as rightly contended by the petitioner herein there isabsolutely no whisper of the existence of these documents in thewritten statement filed by the respondent.

I 3. F'urther, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that therespondcnt herein had on an earlier occasion hled a similarapplication numbered as I.A.No. 150 of 2023 under Order VIIIRule lA of the Code, 1908, seeking to produce several documents.The documents now sought to be produced by the respondentformed a part of the earlier application. The Court below vide orderapplication numbered as I.A.No. 150 of 2023 under Order VIIIRule lA of the Code, 1908, seeking to produce several documents.The documents now sought to be produced by the respondentformed a part of the earlier application. The Court below vide order 2019 (6) ALD 583

dated 21.04.2023 while parrly ailorving rhe saicl applicationrejected the request of the respondent to produce thc docurnentswhich are sought to be produced undcr the prescnt applicatiorr. Theimpugned order categorically records that leavc tbr thesedocuments was rejected as the respondent failed to show sulficientcause for delay.

14. After the Court below had rejected to grant leave in respectof the documents sought under the present application, therespondent herein had preferred the underlying application on16.06.2023 on the ground that the said documcnrs \&,ore nowlocated. The reasons asserted by the petitioner for his inability tofite the documents along with the written statement arc that, (i)Sale Deed bearing documenr No. 8125 of 2005 dated 10.11.2005was traced out very recently and now the. samc was available withthe respondent. (ii), Only a certified copy of the Sale Decd bcaringdocument No. 4389 of 1992 dated 11.06.1992 was availablc withthe respondent, as the original sale deed was handed over to thethird-party purchaser.

15. So I''ar as the first explanation is concemed this Court is ofthe vicrr that the sarne is extremely vague without elaborating as tohorv thc lcspondent could manage to locate the original of adocumcut clairned to have been missing for over a decade,irnrnediatc[1' within two months from the dismissal of the earlierapplication. Irurther, it is to be seen that as per the explanationoffered the original of the second document was with a third-partypurchascr. ['lhe ]said explanation falls short of constituting sufficientcausc as it contradicts the respondent's version in I.A.No. 150 of2023 that the said document was misplaced. A person havinghanded ovcr a document to subsequent purchasers cannot also beallorved to claim that the very same document was misplacedThus, this Court is of the view that the underlying application wasfiled rvith an intention compensate the failures in the respondent'scase

16. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that theimpugncd order is contrary to settled principles of law, and is thusliablc to bc sct-aside.

17' Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition is ailoricd. r-heorder dated 06.07.2023 in I.A. No. 449 of 2023 in O.S \o.453 of2022 (Old. O.S.No. 538 of 2010) by the II Additionat Scrrior CivilJudge, at Malkajgiri, Medchat Malkajgiri Disrricr is ser_asidc.

18. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pcndinu i{.anv shallstand closed. No orders as to cost.

SD/. MOHD. ISMAILASSISTANT REGISTRAR[,,

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1' The Malkajgiri' Additionar senior civir Judge, Medchar, Markajgiri district at3. 2. One CC One CC to Sri. VINJAMURI RANGA BABU, Advocate IOPUCI

to Sri. G NARENDER REDDi:aor"*L-i6pucf

4. Two CD CopiesTwo CD CopiesCD CopiesCopies

4. Two CD CopiesTwo CD CopiesCD CopiesCopiesPSR/JAK\y- HIGH COURT

DATED:2911212023

ORDER

CRP.No.2198 of 2023

1t\[g ][srAr$](q?o3 0 [,!AN ][202[]r)a-** D,::-;,':i, ALLOWING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS.

x(Aao'