Telangana High Court
Smt. Sana Lakshmi Devi Died Per Lrs. vs M/S. Prime Properties on 17 November, 2022
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
C.R.P.NO.315 of 2022
ORDER :
This Civil Revision petition has been filed by the petitioners No.1 to 9, who are respondents No.3 to 11 in I.A.No.93 of 2022 and defendants No.3 to 11 in O.S.No.898 of 2001 and other batch suits on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. They have filed this Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the orders dated 07-02-2022 in the said Interlocutory Application by which the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, the trial Court in short, allowed the petition filed by respondent/plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14(3) r/w Section 151 C.P.C. and granted leave to file certain documents before the trial Court.
2. As could be seen from the record, four (4) suits filed by the same plaintiff vide O.S.No.898 of 2001, 899 of 2001, 900 of 2001 and 901 of 2001 were clubbed and joint trial was directed in O.S.No.898 of 2001. For convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are shown in the plaint. The plaintiff has filed the above referred suits for the relief of cancellation of different sale deeds, and for the relief of cancellation of decrees granted in favour of 2 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.315 of 2022 plaintiffs therein, in different suits. The record shows that the plaintiff having filed chief affidavit of PW.1 before the trial Court, filed I.A.No.93 of 2022 and sought the leave of the Court to file certain documents, under Order 7 Rule 14(3) r/w Section 151 C.P.C. In support of the said petition, one Najeeb Ahmed, a partner of the plaintiff firm filed his affidavit and claimed that the plaintiff wanted to replace photo copies, certified copies of certain documents which were already filed before the Court with originals and certified copies. He has also claimed that they could not file some more documents at the time of filing the suit, since they were not in the custody of plaintiff. He has also submitted that after filing the suits, several litigations cropped up and incidents took place, as such the corresponding documents which could not have been filed at the time of filing the suits, need to be filed before the Court.
3. The plaintiff has further claimed that the certified copies or photocopies of documents were already filed before the Court. The plaintiff has claimed that all the documents sought to be filed are crucial and important for the effective adjudication of the suits, thereby sought the leave of the Court.
3 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.315 of 2022
4. The respondents/defendants have opposed the petition. The GPA holder of respondents/defendants has filed counter affidavit and submitted that the plaintiff has filed the said application after filing the documents and after the defendants raised objections. The defendants have claimed that the plaintiff made a false statement, as if the copies of all the documents are already filed before the Court, but except few documents all the other documents were introduced in the rejoinder. A spiral book dated 20-01-2022 with all the documents was served on 28-01-2022. When the plaintiff wanted to mark the documents through PW.1, they have filed a memo and objected the marking of the documents. Therefore, the defendants were permitted to verify all the documents and, on such verification only the defendants came to know that none of those documents were filed earlier, but copies were served only on 28-01-2022.
5. The defendants have disputed the correctness of the documents and submitted that the documents sought to be produced are either certified copies or photocopies or documents obtained under RTI Act. The defendants have submitted that photocopies and documents obtained under RTI are inadmissible in evidence. They have also claimed that some of the documents are 4 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.315 of 2022 inadmissible for want of stamp duty. The defendants have claimed that there is no explanation from the plaintiff as to what happened to the original documents. The defendants have objected the receipt of documents on the ground that without the compliance of Sections 64 and 65 of Indian Evidence Act, such secondary evidence cannot be permitted. They have also claimed that all the documents were set up for the purpose of rejoinder and they were never mentioned in the pleadings. Therefore, according to those defendants all the proposed documents are bogus and created for the purpose of the suit. The defendants have disputed the correctness/genuineness of all the documents and sought for dismissal of the petition.
6. The trial Court having heard both parties, allowed the petition vide order dated 07-02-2022.
7. Being aggrieved by the above order, the defendants No.3 to 11 have preferred the present revision. The defendants having reiterated all the averments which they have made in the above referred counter, further submitted that leave under Order 7 Rule 14(3) C.P.C. cannot be granted for mere asking and the Court is not a post-office to receive the documents in the absence of any reason. These defendants have claimed that the plaintiff failed to 5 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.315 of 2022 give any explanation for their failure to file the documents along with the plaint, and having slept over for more than two decades, they have pleaded about these documents for the first time in the rejoinder which was erroneously received after refusing leave and only on review the same was granted.
8. The defendants have further submitted that the trial Court deliberately and conveniently glassed over the glaring malafide conduct of plaintiff, thereby serious prejudice was caused to the defendants. They have also claimed that the trial Court acted contrary to its own reasoning, choose to act as mere post- office without any scrutiny of the documents. These defendants have claimed that the trial Court failed to record a jurisdictional finding that plaintiff is able to make out a case for grant of leave for filing documents at this stage.
9. They have also claimed that the trial Court failed to see the reasons given by plaintiff are patently false and untenable. The Court failed to see that the plaintiff is never pleaded anything for not filing the documents mentioned in the plaint. According to these defendants, most of the documents are not referred in the plaint, there is no plea in the plaint that the documents were not in possession of plaintiff. They have also pleaded that the rejoinder 6 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.315 of 2022 cannot be basis for its new and improved pleadings and basis for filing the documents.
10. The defendants have also submitted that since trial was already begun on framing of issues on 19-08-2005, leave could not have been granted to file the documents. Therefore, for all the above reasons, the defendants No.3 to 11 sought for setting aside the order and for cancellation of leave.
11. Heard both parties.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri M.V.Durga Prasad has advanced arguments and submitted that four suits filed in respect of different survey numbers were clubbed and trial Court started recording evidence in O.S.No.898 of 2001. He has also submitted that initially a collusive suit has been filed by the plaintiff against one defendant by showing few documents, but subsequently some more defendants were impleaded on their own applications. The trial Court framed issues in the year 2005, there were number of amendments to the plaint, but all the said amendments were subsequent to 2019. The plaintiff's request for receipt of rejoinder was once dismissed by the trial Court, but on review petition filed by the plaintiff, the trial court granted permission to the plaintiff to file rejoinder. The order under review 7 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.315 of 2022 was challenged before the High Court and said order was set aside. But a special leave petition was moved before the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the order of High Court and directed the trial Court to receive rejoinder and the defendants were allowed to file sur-rejoinder. Accordingly, the rejoinder remained on record.
13. The learned counsel has submitted that the suit was filed in 2001. Issues were settled in 2005, but the petition to leave was filed after 20 years. Most of the documents sought to be filed are in the custody of plaintiff, but there is no explanation from the plaintiff as to why these documents were not filed along with plaint and for the delay in filing these documents. If the documents are received after such a long delay, it will cause prejudice to the defendants.
14. The learned counsel disputed the admissibility of the documents. He has argued that the documents sought to be filed after obtaining leave are not original documents. Some of these documents are photocopies, some of them are certified copies of certified copies and some were obtained under the provisions of RTI Act. Therefore, they cannot be admitted in evidence. He has also argued that some of the documents require stamp duty and 8 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.315 of 2022 penalty, unless they are impounded, they cannot be received in evidence. He has also submitted that secondary evidence cannot be permitted without the compliance of Sections 64 and 65 of Indian Evidence Act.
15. The learned counsel has further argued that many documents sought to be filed are prior to the filing of suit, but the plaintiff did not give any explanation as to why they were not filed along with plaint. There is no explanation as to what happened to the originals. Therefore, leave could not have been granted by the trial Court. He has also submitted that the documents cannot be received without proper scrutiny.
16. The learned counsel representing respondents/plaintiffs Sri Satish Parasaran argued that initially the suit was filed by plaintiff against one defendant, but subsequently there were number of amendments and number of defendants came on record and filed their respective written statements with different contentions. Therefore, the plaintiff was forced to file rejoinder to explain or to answer all the claims raised in the said above referred written statements. The request of plaintiff to file rejoinder was opposed by the defendants. The application filed by the plaintiff for permission to file rejoinder was dismissed but, on a 9 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.315 of 2022 petition, filed by plaintiff for review, their request was accepted. Therefore, a revision was moved before the High Court and subsequently, by virtue of orders of Hon'ble Apex Court, the defendants filed sur-rejoinder wherein, the defendants have disputed all the plaint averments and averments made in the rejoinder, putting the plaintiff to strict proof of each and every averment. The defendants have denied all the plaint averments and the averments made in the rejoinder thereby, there is heavy burden on the plaintiff to prove its claim as such, it is quite necessary to produce all the relevant documents before the Court. The learned counsel further argued that unless the plaintiff is permitted to file and produce all the documents, it is impossible for the plaintiff to prove its claim. Therefore, the plaintiff was forced to file a petition under Order 7 Rule 14(3) C.P.C. seeking leave to file all the relevant documents.
17. With regard to delay in filing the documents, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that though the suit was filed in 2001, only after the amendment of plaint and addition of number of defendants it necessitated the plaintiff to file rejoinder and in view of the above stated circumstances only, there is a necessity to file these documents. Therefore, the delay 10 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.315 of 2022 in filing the petition seeking leave is not intentional. In view of the subsequent pleadings of the newly added defendants, it is just and necessary for the plaintiff to place on record all the documents. Therefore, there was no delay in filing the documents as alleged by the defendants. The learned counsel further argued that while deciding the petition under Order 7 Rule 14(3) C.P.C., the question of admissibility of the documents need not be considered and all such questions can be raised at the time of admitting the documents in evidence. The Court must see whether there are grounds to grant leave to file documents at that particular stage.
18. The learned counsel has argued that second defendant filed additional written statement on 27-09-2021. In view of the specific contentions raised in sur-rejoinder which is not in accordance with the Hon'ble Apex Court, heavy burden was placed on the plaintiff to prove various issues. Therefore, it forced the plaintiff to file all the documents and in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants about the admissibility, stamp duty etc., the learned counsel has argued that these questions need not be answered while granting leave to file additional documents. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for plaintiff, the Court below rightly allowed their application.
11 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.315 of 2022
19. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following Judgments and argued that the trial court ought not to have granted leave to the respondent/plaintiff for filing the inadmissible documents which were filed two decades after filing the suit without explaining any reason for its failure to file the documents along with the plaint.
20. "Katakam Viswanathan Vs. Katakam China Srirama Murthy and others"1, In the above Judgment, the High Court of combined State of A.P. made an observation that:
"The party who seeks to tender secondary evidence is required to satisfy the Court that the conditions prescribed by the law under Section 65 of Evidence Act do exist which enable him to tender secondary evidence with regard to a document".
21. "G.Sanjeeva Reddy (died) and others vs. 2 Indukuru Lakshmamma and others" , in the Judgment, it was held that :
"The party who seeks leave to file documents shall show reasonable cause for exercise of Judicial decision under Order 7 rule 14(3) of C.P.C.".
22. "B.Ramasubba Reddy & another vs. 3 Y.Ramakrishna Reddy and another" , in this Judgment also, it was held that :
1
2004 SCC online AP 165 2 2006 (1) APLJ 465 HC 3 2008 SCC online AP 594 12 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.315 of 2022 "The party shall assign satisfactory reasons to obtain leave".
23. "Choudari Rajesham vs. Choudari Lingaiah"4, in the above Judgment, it was held that:
"The Court is not a post-office and leave shall not be granted for mere asking and shall be granted only on adequate reasons".
24. "Datti Kameswari vs. Singam Rao Sarath Chandra and another"5, in the Judgment, it was held that:
"The petitioner relied on the Judgment to show that RTI copies are subject to Section 65 (a)(b) or (c) of Evidence Act".
25. "Spectrum Power Generation Limited, rep. by its G.M. vs. M. Kishan Rao and others"6, in the above Judgment, it was held that:
"Even the Judgments of High Court must comply with the requirement of Section 76 of Indian Evidence Act".
26. "Vidyabai and others vs. Padmalatha and another"7, in the Judgment, it was held that:
"The date on which issues are settled is the first date of hearing and filing of chief affidavit would amount to "commencement of proceedings".4
2019 SCC online TS 1399 5 2015 SCC online Hyd 389 6 2016 SCC online Hyd 435 7 (2009) 2 SCC 409 13 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.315 of 2022
27. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the following Judgments:
28. "Krishnapatnam Port Co. Ltd rep. by its M.D. vs. Cargill India Pvt. Ltd.. by authorized signatory"8, in this Judgment, the Court at Para No.16 held that:
"16. Hence, from the above, it can be understood that the courts have been permitting admission of xerox copies into evidence, but the nature of the documents and probative value of the documents and possibilities of tampering the documents have to be taken into consideration, before permitting xerox copies into evidence."
29. "Dhanpat V Sheo Ram (deceased) through LR's & others"9, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that:
"All the objections about admissibility of documents shall be decided at the stage of final hearing and it is not proper for the Court not to proceed further without passing an order on each such objection".
30. "Sundaram Dynacast Pvt. Ltd., vs Raas Controls & another"10, it was held that:
"Admissibility or veracity of documents cannot be gone into at inception stage".
31. "Kapil Kumar Sharma Vs. Lalith Kumar Sharma & another"11, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that: 8
2018 SCC online Hyd 2105 9 (2020) 16 SCC 209 10 2011 (3) CTC 302 14 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.315 of 2022 "Leave can be granted to file documents when cross-examination of the witness through whom such documents sought to be marked had not yet commenced".
32. "Punjab National Bank, Rajpura Township vs. Amrit Industries and another"12, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to held that:
"The High Court cannot interfere with the order of lower Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C. unless such an order was passed without jurisdiction or suffered from any error warranting interference".
33. "Shalini Shyam Shetty and another vs. Rajendra Shanker Patil"13, in the Judgment, it was held in Para No.49 ....
(l) "On a proper appreciation of the wide and unfettered power of the High Court under Article 227, it transpires that the main object of this article is to keep strict administrative and judicial control by the High Court on the administration of justice within its territory".
(m) "The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under this article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunal and courts subordinate to the High Court".
11 (2013) 14 SCC 612 12 (2000) 10 SCC 38 13 (2010) 8 SCC 3291 15 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.315 of 2022
34. In "N.Balakrishnan vs. M.Krishna Murthy"14, it was held that :
"Sufficient cause should be construed liberally".
35. It is a fact that the petition for leave to file additional documents has been filed about more than 20 years after filing the suit. The respondent/plaintiff has filed O.S.No.898 of 2001 against only one defendant for cancellation of sale deed dated 15-04- 1996. The plaintiff also filed three more suits vide O.S.No.899 of 2001, 900 of 2001 and 901 of 2001 with similar relief and all the four suits were filed in respect of landed property in Sy.No.1007 of Kukatpally. Even though issues were framed in 2005, plaintiff filed petitions to amend the plaints and as per the arguments advanced by Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, the plaintiff did not amend the plaints till 2008. There was no progress in the trial till 2018. It appears during the period of 2018-2021, certain petitions for amendment of pleadings and impleading some more new defendants have been filed. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has argued that in view of impleadment of new defendants and in view of the new pleadings brought on record, the plaintiffs filed an application seeking relief to file a rejoinder, the trial Court though dismissed the request, allowed it when the respondent filed review 14 (1998) 7 SCC 123 16 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.315 of 2022 petition. As per the record, it shows that the plaintiff filed I.A.No.438 of 2021 for the amendment of plaint, it was allowed, and defendants filed additional written statements to the amended plaint. The learned counsel further stated that through the additional written statements, the defendants raised new grounds thereby, the plaintiff filed petitions seeking leave to file rejoinder which was opposed by the defendants. The above undisputed facts would show that though the suits were filed in 2001, it was against only one defendant and later there were amendment to the pleadings, additional written statements were filed. Therefore, I find some force in the claim of the respondent/plaintiff that they were constrained to file all the proposed documents to answer all the objections in the newly added pleadings. It is settled law that a plaintiff is supposed to prove his case by producing oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, the plaintiff must have intended to file all the available evidence and filed the petition for leave. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff further argued that in the written statement and in the additional pleadings, the defendants have denied all the plaint averments and put the plaintiff to strict proof even to prove some undisputed facts. Therefore, it necessitated the plaintiffs to file all the documents 17 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.315 of 2022 which will support their case. Having admitted the claim of defendants about filing of certified copies and documents obtained under RTI Act, the learned counsel has submitted that the petition was filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3) C.P.C. for leave and admissibility or otherwise of the documents can only be decided at the time of marking the documents.
36. The main objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is about the delay, no explanation as to why the documents were not filed along with the plaint, the documents sought to be marked are inadmissible documents. The record shows that after the filing of additional pleadings and rejoinder, the trial court framed seven additional issues on 31-01-2022. The order by which the trial Court allowed the petition for receiving rejoinder has been challenged before this Court and this Court set aside the order thereby, the respondent/plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal vide SLP (C No.6464 of 2022) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
37. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff filed the copy of orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP 6464 of 2022 along with a memo before submitting his arguments in this revision. As seen from the above order, the Hon'ble Apex Court 18 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.315 of 2022 while disposing the SLP was pleased to observe at Para No.8 as follows:
"8. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, having minutely examined the material placed on record as also the lists of relevant dates supplied by the learned counsel for the appellant and by the learned counsel for the contesting-respondents, we are clearly of the view that in this matter, essentially pertaining to the operation of rules of procedure in the trial of civil suits, the views as taken by the Trial Court in its order dated 29-11-2021 and the order dated 29-12-2021 as also the view as taken by the High Court in its impugned order dated 14-03-2022 carry their own shortcomings but, appropriate orders are required to be passed for ensuring proper progression of the suits".
38. Prior to the disposal of the SLP, the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 08-05-2019, directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit on priority basis, and shall submit specific report as regards progression of the suits and shall dispose the suit by 31- 03-2023. In the above referred SLP, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to further observe at Paras No.11 and 12 as follows:
"11. In a comprehensive consideration of all the relevant factors and features, we are clearly of the view that this appeal calls for such orders which may be conducive to the purpose of expeditious proceeding rather than protraction because of the procedural aspects relating to the filing of the pleadings. At the same time, balance of the operations of the rules of procedure is also required to be ensured, so as to avoid any likely prejudice to any of the parties".
19 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.315 of 2022 "11.1. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to modify the orders impugned so as to allow the rejoinder to remain on record but, at the same time, to allow the contesting-defendants to place on record their further pleadings in the form of sur-rejoinder, to the extent it may be necessary".
"12. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated above. The impugned order dated 14-03- 2022 is set aside but the order passed by the Trial Court on 29-12- 2021 shall be made applicable with the modification that in the peculiar circumstance of this case, the defendant Nos.4 to 11 shall be permitted to place on record their further pleadings in the form of sur-rejoinder but only to the extent of new facts, if any, pleaded in the rejoinder filed by the plaintiff. In other words, sur-rejoinder shall remain confined to any such fact, if at all, newly pleaded by the plaintiff in the rejoinder".
39. In view of the above, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that by virtue of the above orders apart from the pleadings namely plaint and written statement, subsequently filed additional pleadings, additional written statement, rejoinder and sur-rejoinder, the burden is heavily on the plaintiff to prove all the claims not only by way of oral evidence but also by filing all the necessary documents. Therefore, he has submitted that the trial Court passed a reasoned order and sought for dismissal of the revision.
40. In the Judgment between "Katakam Viswanathan"
referred supra, the High Court has held that while granting 20 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.315 of 2022 leave, the Court shall examine whether the documents sought to be tendered is legally admissible. However, the Court while disposing the revision in Para No.10 of the Judgment held that exercising the revisional power, more particularly, under Article 227 of Constitution of India which is required to be exercised sparingly. It also held that some mere fact that the conclusion is not supported by reasons need not necessarily warrant interference of High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article
227.
41. In the other case between G.Sanjeeva Reddy referred Supra, the facts of that particular case are different. In the said case, 3rd plaintiff who was brought on record later, and after his filing chief affidavit, sought for leave to file a document but failed to explain as to why the first plaintiff was unable to present the document along with the plaint. But here in this case, the evidence is not yet commenced and soon after filing the rejoinder, the plaintiff filed Order 7 Rule 14(3) C.P.C. The High Court of combined State of A.P. in B.Ramasubba Reddy case referred above held that a reasoned order shall be passed while disposing interlocutory application and a cryptic order does not sub-serve the purpose. But in the case on hand, there is no such 21 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.315 of 2022 cryptic order and in fact the trial Court passed a detailed reasoned order as to why leave was granted to the respondent/plaintiff for filing the documents.
42. The respondent/plaintiff relied on a Judgment of Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of A.P. for the proposition that even photocopies of the documents can be received in evidence.
43. In view of the Judgment in Dhanpat, referred above, it is very clear that for admitting a secondary evidence, application for permission is not required, if sufficient foundation has been laid in the pleadings. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the same Judgment made an observation that the objection as to admissibility and proof of evidence can be decided at final stage.
44. In other Judgment vide 2011 (3) CPC 302, the Court had held that admissibility or veracity of a document cannot be gone into at an inception stage. The position with regard to grant of leave to file the documents is very clear in view of the Judgment in Kapil Kumar Sharma, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when the cross-examination of witness is not commenced, leave can be granted under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) C.P.C.
22 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.315 of 2022
45. In the Judgment between Punjab National Bank, Rajpura Township vs. Amrit Industries, referred above, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that while exercising revisionary powers under Section 115 C.P.C. quashment of order by the High Court unless there is a ground to believe that such an order was passed without jurisdiction or it suffered from any error warranting interference, such order cannot be set aside.
46. As per the Judgment in Shalini Shyam Shetty and another, referred above, the Hon'ble Apex Court explained the power of High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
47. As per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4096 of 2022, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that the trial Court as well as the High Court committed an error by not permitting the defendants to produce the documents even though the relevance of which can be examined by the trial Court on the basis of evidence to be laid but to deprive a party to the suit not to file documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice.
48. As already stated in the previous paragraphs, the respondent/plaintiff filed the petition under Order 7 Rule 14(3) 23 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.315 of 2022 C.P.C. for leave was filed about more than 20 years after filing the suit, but such delay in the above stated peculiar circumstances, cannot be termed as inordinate delay. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff, since the suit was filed against only one defendant, the plaintiff might have thought that there was no necessity to file all the documents and in view of the subsequent additional pleadings, it must have necessitated the plaintiff to file an application seeking relief to file the additional documents.
49. In the light of what was held in the above referred Judgments, it is very clear that even a photocopy of the document can be marked, and the relevancy of the documents need not be decided at the time of marking the documents and the same can be considered at the time of final hearing. Therefore, the objections raised by the petitioner will not sustain.
50. The respondent/plaintiff by way of the affidavit filed in support of the petition and in view of the subsequent circumstances including the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLPs is able to make out a case for obtaining leave to file the documents. Simply because leave is granted, it is not as if the Court is admitting the relevancy or proof of those documents 24 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.315 of 2022 which can be decided at the time of final hearing. In fact, the petitioner is at liberty to raise objection against the admissibility of the document when it is tendered by the witness at the time of trial. When the petitioner is having such a right, leave cannot be denied for production of documents that too before the commencement of cross-examination of PW.1. The delay that occasioned in this case was not due to the fault of the respondent/plaintiff but in view of the subsequent events and subsequent pleadings brought on record. The Division Bench, in the judgment of Krishnapatnam Port Company, referred supra while discussing about the power of High Court under under Article 227 of the Constitution of India observed in para 30 as follows:
"30. This revision is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The maintainability of this petition is not disputed by both the counsels. But the scope of entertainment of such petition needs to be examined. There is no quarrel that the law is well settled that the power under Article 227 can be exercised only in exceptional cases i.e. to keep the Courts within the bounds of law, but not to merely correct the errors. For this proposition, the Court placed reliance on the Judgment in State of Hariyana v. Monoj Kumar15, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe as follows:
"More than half a Century ago, the Constitution Bench of this Courtin Negendra Nath Boru and another v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam, AIR 1958 SC 398 settled that power under Art. 227 is limited to seeing that the Courts below function 15 (5) (2010) 2 ICC 602 25 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.315 of 2022 within the limit of its authority or jurisdiction. This Court placed reliance on Nagendra Nath's case in a subsequent judgment in Niburan Chandra Bag v. Mahendra Nath Ghugu, AIR 1963 SC 1895.
The Court observed that jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 is not by any means appellate in its nature for correcting errors in the decisions of subordinate Courts or tribunals but is merely a power of superintendence to be used to keep them within the bounds of their authority..."
51. In the present case the court below has considered the circumstances which forced the plaintiff to file the additional documents in a proper way and granted leave, as such, the order impugned in the present revision cannot be set aside while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution.
52. In the result, Revision is dismissed with costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU Date: 17.11.2022 PLV 26 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.315 of 2022