Telangana High Court
The Wool Industrial Cooperative ... vs Kurma Vidyarthi Vasathi Gruham And 3 ... on 18 September, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1810 OF 2021
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 19.03.2021 in I.A.No.32 of 2020 in O.S.No.28 of 2018, wherein the Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants Nos.1-4, seeking to declare the plaintiff as the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, for recovery of arrears of rent and for possession thereof, and to declare the registered lease deed bearing No.3762/2016, dated 24.06.2016 as null and void and for subsequent relief or injunction.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner herein, who is defendant No.1 in the suit, filed the written statement on 07.12.2016, and it is an admitted fact that no documents were filed at the time of filing of written submissions. The present application, I.A.No.32 of 2020, was filed on 18.03.2020 seeking to receive certain documents by condoning the delay in filing the documents along with the written statement. It is further contended that the same could not be filed along with the written statement as all the documents were in possession of the previous president of the society and said that they could not be filed 2 subsequent to the trial and only upon a serious search the said documents were traced.
3. Before the trial Court, it is averred that the said documents are material for the disposal of the suit and if they are not received by condoning the delay, it would result in great loss and hardship, which cannot be compensated by any means and all the documents are public documents.
4. In reply to the same, the respondent has filed a counter before trial Court denying the allegations mentioned in the petition and averred that there was no documentary evidence to prove that the President was elected on 22.10.2017 and that his term was extended for further two years. The respondent also denied the possession and sale of the land admeasuring Ac.0.14 guntas and also alleged that the documents i.e., minutes book, house tax assessment register, by laws, lease deed document are all false and they are created behind the back of the respondent/plaintiff and the defendants have no right or title over the said property in any manner and the same are void and not binding and all are fabricated and created recently for the purpose of this case.
5. Having heard both sides and after considering the judgment filed by the plaintiff reported in U.Venkatramma v. V.Ravinder 3 Reddy in 2019(5) ALD 210 (TS). The learned trial Court has allowed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed by the plaintiff.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued and contended that the documents which are filed are all created and are filed more than five years after the date of filing of the written statement, and contended that as per Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) read with Section 51 CPC, no documents shall be file 1d without the leave of the Court unless proper reasons has been shown for non- filing of the same and he also argued and contended that the order which is passed by the learned judge is erroneous on a ground that the said documents are all created and no proper reasons were explained and the delay was not properly explained and the said application ought not to have been allowed for the reasons that the same was filed after the pleadings are completed and issues are framed and the trial has been commenced in the suit and filing of the said documents to cover up the lacunae is impermissible and the said documents having been filed at the belated stage, though contending as they are public documents the same can be received and he relied upon the judgments i.e.2019(5) ALD 210 (TS), of Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad between U.Venkatramma v. V.Ravinder 1 2019(5) ALD 210 (TS) 4 Reddy in CRP No.557 of 2019 and prayed to allow the revision petition.
7. In contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued and contended that as the reasons which are cited by the petitioner for non-filing of the documents are genuine, and that as the said documents could not be traced and finally they were found with the former president of the said society and only then they came to know about the said document and which could not be filed for the said reasons and he argued that mere technicalities should not bar the consideration of public documents, which can be received subject to proof and relevance and he submits that the documents which the petitioner relied upon are public documents and also cross examine the said aspects. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sugandhi (died) v P.Raj Kumar Rep. by power Agent, dated 13.10.2020 reported in (2020) 10 SCC 706 and in particular, paras 6, 7, 8, and 9 are as under::
6. Rule 1A of Order 8 of C.P.C. provides the procedure for production of documents by the defendant which is as under:
"1-A. Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him.-- (1) Where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for setoff or counterclaim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him 5 and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.
(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.
(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document--
(a) produced for the crossexamination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or
(b)handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory."
7. Subrule (1) mandates the defendant to produce the documents in his possession before the court and file the same along with his written statement. He must list out the documents which are in his possession or power as well as those which are not. In case the defendant does not file any document or copy thereof along with his written statement, such a document shall not be allowed to be received in evidence on behalf of the defendant at the hearing of the suit. However, this will not apply to a document produced for cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses or handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. Subrule (3) states that a document which is not produced at the time of filing of the written statement, shall not be received in evidence except with the leave of the court. Rule (1) of Order 13 of C.P.C. again makes it mandatory for the parties to produce their original documents before settlement of issues.
8. Subrule (3), as quoted above, provides a second opportunity to the defendant to produce the documents which ought to have been produced in the court along with the written statement, with the leave of the court. The discretion conferred upon the court to grant 6 such leave is to be exercised judiciously. While there is no straight jacket formula, this leave can be granted by the court on a good cause being shown by the defendant.
9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the documents under subrule (3).
8. No doubt as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents were filed approximately five years after the filing of the written submissions, however, the law contemplates that as the trial court being a court of facts where the parties will have an opportunity to present all the available evidence either oral or documentary evidence and on the ground of technicalities no party can be shut from placing any evidence either oral or documentary purely on the technical grounds and considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as it is stated that the procedure 7 being handmade justice and as rightly contended in the present case.
9. However, on perusal of the documents which are mentioned in the Para 7 of the order and the order passed by the learned Judge reveals that the said documents are being received subject to proof and this Court is of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff that if the said document is received in evidence, he would be given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses on the said documents and also to rebut the same.
10. In view of the above, I hold that no error has been committed by the learned Judge in my considered opinion. The learned Judge has rightly exercised the jurisdiction in allowing the application to considering the facts that the said documents were filed after more than five years of the written submissions the plaintiff has to be compensated of the same.
11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible subject to the condition that both 8 the counsels shall cooperate with the trial court without seeking any unnecessary adjournments, the document shall be received subject to proof, relevance, and applicability. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision petition shall stand closed.
________________________________________ JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA Date: 18.09.2025 ADT