CRP/1736/2013 of M/S STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs PAPATLA PRABHAKAR AND PAPATLA HYMAVATHI on 31 December 2021

ORDER

This Civi Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 ofConstitution o India by the revision petitioner / plztintiff bankagainst the rt spondents / defendants assailing the ordersdated 01-03-2 113 in I.A.No.S1 of 2013 in O.S.No.2271 of2006 on the fi e of the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,Hyderabad.

2. The peti ioner bank has filed O.S.No.2271 of 2006against the delendants for recovery of Rs.4,28,7 19.76 paisewith interest at 8.25 %o p.a. from 15-12-2006 onwards.Initially, in spi e of service of summons, the defendants 1 and2 failed to appr:ar before the Court and they were set ex parte.The Court belc w after recording the evidence of PW- 1 and onexhibiting the documents as in Exs.A-l to A-4 passed thejudgment and lecree on 2O-11-2OO7. Later when the plaintiffbank has sta'ed pressing for realization of the decreetalamount an aJ plication was filed by the defendants underOrder lX Rule 13 of C.P.C., and it was allorved, the ex partedecree passed against both the defendants was set aside.They were give e an opportunity to file the written statement.Issues were se tled. While recording the evidence of plaintiffs, plaintiff bank has filed I.A.No.B1 of 2013 under Order VIIRule 14(3) of C.P.C. seeking leave of the Court for filingcertain documents, which could not be filed along with theOriginal Suit. The trial Court on appreciating the facts hasdismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the said order,dated O1-03-2013 this Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. As per the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.81 of 2013the petitioner / plaintiff bank intends to exhibit firstly thenewspaper publication under SARFAESI Act published1nEenadu duty certified by the Branch Manager, dated06-02-2006. Secondly, letter from plaintiff to its Zonal Officerrelating to the fee of Enforcement Agency M/s.Sisir & RaviAssociates duly certified by the Branch Manager. Thirdiy,demand notice under Securitization Act, duly certified by theBranch Manager.

4. Earlier,. in the evidence of PW- 1 , Exs.A- 1 to A-4documents were marked and these 3 documents wereproposed to be marked as Exs.A-S to A-7 respectively alongwith the statement of account of defendant No.1 showing thecredits to his account. That the Court below has dismissedthe said application with an observation that there was [no]whisper in the plaint about the proposed documents as onthe date of filing the suit and that it is the duty of the [plaintiff-]

(

to plead anc explain that the said documents were thoughavailable but could not be filed for valid reason or they werenot available Accordingly, as the petitioner failed to complythe procedur: prescribed under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CpCin respect of :hese documents leave was rejected. More so, asthe propose( [ documents are the photocopies and notoriginals, suc r photocopies are not received in evidence.

5. Piaintiff is a nationalized bank, filed the suit against thedefendants fo [. ]recovery of huge amounts. In fact, the evidenceof PW- 1 was ; ecorded, Exs.A- 1 to A-4 were already exhibited.Petitioner has only proposed to file copy of notice punishedunder SARFI ESI Act in Eenadu it is dated 06-02_2006certified by t re Branch Manager. The second document isinternal corre rpondence and it is copy of letter acldressed bythe plaintiff to its zonal officer it is with reference to the fee ofEnforcement l,gency. Third document is copy of demandnotice under Securitization Act and duly certified by theBranch Manar Jer. Another document that is proposed to bemarked as sta .ement of account. It is fact that the documentdated 06-02-2 lO6 is publication of notice under SARFAESIAct in Eenadu daily is a photocopy. But it is attested by theBranch Mana 3er. The defendants have not denied thepublication of said notice in Eenadu Telugu Daily. Similarly,the original le ter dated 16-06-2006 is addressed from the plaintiff to its Zonal Officer. Office copy of the same is foundin the office and it is attested by the Manager of the plaintiffBranch. Thirdly, demand notice under Securitization Act,which original of the said notice was sent to the defendantsand copy is attested by the Branch Manager. The 4tr,in the office and it is attested by the Manager of the plaintiffBranch. Thirdly, demand notice under Securitization Act,which original of the said notice was sent to the defendantsand copy is attested by the Branch Manager. The 4tr,document is statement of account. When the originals aresent to the defendants in the course of business and theplaintiff bank is only having photocopy of the same, whichwere obtained in due course and the Branch Manager hasattested the same, there cannot be any legal hurdle to receivethe said documents subject to proof of relevancy. Mereexhibiting the documents by itself is not a sufficient proof ofthe contents of the same. It is for the Bank producing the saidplaintiff bank is only having photocopy of the same, whichwere obtained in due course and the Branch Manager hasattested the same, there cannot be any legal hurdle to receivethe said documents subject to proof of relevancy. Mereexhibiting the documents by itself is not a sufficient proof ofthe contents of the same. It is for the Bank producing the saiddocuments to explain the contents, in accordance with theEvidence Act. By no stretch of imagination letter dated06-02-2006, demand notice dated 24-8-2OOS or thestatement of account can be treated as secondary evidence asthe originals are being sent to the party. The notice underSARFAESI Act is published in Eenadu on 06-02-2006 theplaintiff bank has filed photocopy of Eenadu, which is dulycertified by the Branch Manager it is for the defendants tostatement of account can be treated as secondary evidence asthe originals are being sent to the party. The notice underSARFAESI Act is published in Eenadu on 06-02-2006 theplaintiff bank has filed photocopy of Eenadu, which is dulycertified by the Branch Manager it is for the defendants toraise any such objection in the course of cross-examination ofPW-i.PW-i.

(

(

6. In the r':sult, I find that the order impugned warrantsinterference e nd accordingly it is set aside. Consequently,I.A.No.81 of 2 )13 is allowed. Plaintiff is permitted to producethe document ; at Sl.Nos.1 to 4 as mentioned in the affidavitfiled in supprrt of the application in I.A.No.B1 of 2013.Considering tl e fact that the Original Suit is filed in the year2006 by th: plaintiff bank for recovery of moneyRs.4,28,719.7,) Ps. and initially the plaintiff bank hasobtained an e.: parte decree dated 20-1 l-20O7 but later whenthe defendant:, have caused appearance the proceedings havecome to a grin ling halt, the Court below is directed to disposeof the Origina t Suit at the earliest possible and under anycircumstances not beyond six (6) months from the date ofreceipt of a cr py of this order. Both the parties to the suitshall cooperat. with the trial Court for expeditious disposal ofthe matter. Th:re sha11 be no order as to costs Pending liscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand clo sed.

Sd/-T.SRINIVASASSISTANT REGISTRAR(i,SECTION OFFICER

//TRUE COPYII

To

1. The ll Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hvderabad.l. [One CC ][to Sri ][C.s,Chikiavaitnv, ][AJrocr'te ][(OFubl]3. One CC to Sri A.K Narasimha Rao, Advocatb (OPUC)4. Two CD Copies5. One Spare CopyKi.alftl HIGH COURT

DATED:3111212021

ORDERCRP.No.'t 736 of 2013

ALLOWED.

,TN1qc/-a-

$1