Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
C V Subramanyam vs G Bhaskar on 18 April, 2022
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2620 of 2019
ORDER:
The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 30.07.2019 passed in I.A.No.265 of 2018 in O.S.No.259 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proaddatur, YSR Kadapa District.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the above referred suit. He filed an application vide I.A.No.265 of 2018 in O.S.No.259 of 2017 under Order VII, Rule 14(3) of CPC to receive and mark the document on his behalf. In the affidavit filed in support of the said I.A it was stated that the said document i.e., Municipal Tax Receipt is a crucial document and the same is required to be marked as an exhibit. The said application was opposed by the respondents/defendants, by filing a counter. The learned Trial Judge after considering the matter dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the said Order, present Revision Petition is filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the Court below went wrong in deciding the genuineness or otherwise of the document sought to be marked in the evidence at the stage of receiving the document.
5. It is further submitted that at the time of receiving the document the aspects of admissibility, relevancy, proof and genuineness cannot be looked into and the same shall be considered at the time of marking the document. It is submitted that in the present case, the learned Trial Judge committed material irregularity in considering the admissibility of the document at the stage of receiving the same and therefore the Order under Revision is liable to be set aside.
2
NJS, J Crp_2620_ 2019
6. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the document sought to be received is a receipt, which is subsequent to filing of the suit, same cannot be received and urges for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition as the learned Trial Judge has not committed any material irregularity as contended.
7. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner when an application is filed to receive the document, it is incumbent on the part of the Court to receive the same subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility and as to whether the same is admissible in evidence can be looked into only at the stage of marking the document.
8. In the present case, it would appear that the Trial Court has undertaken the exercise of examining the admissibility of the document at the threshold i.e., at the time of receiving the same, which is not sustainable. The parties to the suit are at liberty to adduce oral and documentary evidence, according to their choice in order to substantiate their case. The question of relevancy or validity of documents, after they are tendered in evidence, shall be considered by the Court in accordance with law. The Court cannot embark upon to scrutinize or consider the legality or relevancy of the same at the time of receiving them. Court can tentatively mark a document and examine the objection raised as to its admissibility along with pronouncement of Judgment (See: 2015 (3) ALT 575).
9. In the light of the legal position referred to above, the Order under Revision is not sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. 3
NJS, J Crp_2620_ 2019
10. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly, allowed. I.A.No.265 of 2018 in O.S.No.259 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Proddatur stands allowed. The learned Trial Court is directed to receive the document, subject to its admissibility, proof and relevancy. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date: 18.04.2022 IS 4 NJS, J Crp_2620_ 2019 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Civil Revision Petition No.2620 of 2019 Date: 18.04.2022 IS