Telangana High Court
CRP/4684/2015 of Chaitanya Electrical Enterprises Vs Andhra University on 31 December 2015
SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4684 OF 2015 ORDER: This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order passed by the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in I.A. No.1101 of 2015 in O.S. No.167 of 2011 dated
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4684 OF 2015
This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, ispreferred against the order passed by the II Additional District Judge,Visakhapatnam in I.A. No.1101 of 2015 in O.S. No.167 of 2011 dated15.09.2015.
The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No.167 of 2011, and thepetitioner in I.A. No.1101 of 2015. I.A. No.1101 of 2015 was filed, underOrder XVI Rule 6 CPC, to summon the defendant to cause production ofthe entire file relating to the construction and payment for the Hostel forForeign students in Andhra University, North Campus, Visakhapatnam,including the letter addressed by Mr. Prasad, AEE through Deputy E.E. on05.06.2008 and the office note dated 02.07.2008 signed by AEE to theExecutive Engineer (Civil), Andhra University.
In the order under revision, the Court below observed that theplaintiff had filed the suit narrating all details of the work executed by himrelating to the defendant University; he had also furnished details of theinterest payable, on the monthly progress of the work, in the plaint; he hadfurnished all details relating to various works executed by him; he did notmake any reference, to the documents sought to be produced by filing thepresent petition, either in the plaint or in his evidence; he had furnished alldetails of the contract works executed by him; he also examined P.W-2 toprove his contention; he had adduced documentary evidence to prove hiscontention; he did not mention any reason, much less a valid reason, as tohow the documents, sought to be produced by the defendant, wereessential to establish his contention for they were not at all referred eitherin the plaint, or in the evidence; and there was substance in the contention,of the respondent-defendant, that no material purpose would be served bysummoning those documents.
Sri A.S.C. Bose, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the Court below ought not to have taken a hyper-technical view, andshould have summoned the document and caused production of the entirefile as the endeavour of the Court should be to render justice; thedocuments, which the petitioner sought production of, would establish theplea in para (e) of the plaint that the University Engineer had assured themthat new SSR rates would be paid for the balance portion of the work, andall additional works/deviations are carried out on verbal instructions only. On the other hand Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, Learned Counsel for therespondent, would contend that the order of the Court below does notnecessitate interference as the documents, which the petitioner sought tosummon, are neither public documents nor is it based on any plea in theplaint.
The petitioner seeks to have the entire file, relating to constructionand payment, being summoned, including the letter addressed by theAssistant Engineer to the Executive Engineer, and the office note signedby the Assistant Executive Engineer. These two documents are in thenature of internal correspondence, and are not public documents. Theplea, in para (e) of the plaint as referred to above, is only that the work wasexecuted on the verbal instructions of the Executive Engineer, and he hadassured that they would be paid new SSR rates for the balance work. Theaforesaid two letters are not letters of the Executive Engineer, but by someother officials. These documents, sought to be summoned, are notreferable to the pleadings in para (e) of the plaint.
The Court below has rightly held that, in the absence of a specificplea in the plaint, the petitioner-plaintiff could not seek to have the entiredocuments summoned merely because the defendant chose not to adduceevidence examining any witnesses in their defence. The jurisdictionwhich this Court exercises, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, issupervisory and not appellate; and save patent illegality, in the order underrevision, no interference is called for. The order under revision does notsuffer from any such infirmity. The revision fails and is, accordingly,dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No costs.
Date: 31.12.2015.MRKR
______________________________
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J