Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Rajah R.V.G.K. Ranga Rao And Anr. vs Nizams Sugars Limited on 24 October, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004(1)ALD387
ORDER P.S. Narayana, J.
1. The petitioners herein, the defendants in the suit O.S. No. 64 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District had filed an application LA. No. 254 of 2003 under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for the purpose of convenience) praying for leave for reception of documents filed along with the application LA. No. 118 of 2003. The application I.A. No. 118 of 2003 was filed praying for granting permission to file list of documents 1 to 6 specified in the said application. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge had dismissed both the applications. Aggrieved by the same both these revisions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. CRP No. 2990 of 2003 is preferred as against the order made in LA. No. 254 of 2003 dated 8.5.2003 while CRP No. 2987 of 2003 is preferred as against the order made in IA No. 118 of 2003 dated 8.5.2003.
2. Sri E.V. Bhagiratha Rao, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners, who moved respective applications before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili, had contended that the respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of. perpetual injunction restraining the second defendant, from interfering with :his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule vehicles stating that the said vehicles are vested in the plaintiff by virtue of the provisions of the Bobbili and Seethanagaram (Acquisition and Transfer of Sugar Undertakings) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 30 of 1986). The learned Counsel had further submitted that the stand taken by the petitioners is that these vehicles are their personal properties and hence such relief cannot be granted in favour of the respondent plaintiff. The learned Counsel also explained that the documents, sought to be produced, are the certified copies of judgment and decree in O.S.I 1 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram and also the original C-books of the vehicles. It was further contended that as required, in fact, the leave was prayed for but the learned Judge had negatived the relief on the ground that such leave cannot be liberally granted. The approach of the learned Judge in this regard is erroneous and if these documents are not received, the matters in controversy cannot be proved and the petitioners will be put to serious prejudice.
3. Per contra Sri Praveen, representing Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff with all vehemence had contended that the learned Judge is well justified in dismissing the applications since after settlement of issues though opportunity had been afforded for about a period of three years, no attempt was made by the revision petitioners to put forth these documents and absolutely there are no bona fides and hence the learned Judge is well justified in refusing the leave and also dismissing the other application for reception of documents. The learned Counsel while elaborating his submissions had gone a step further and had explained that by virtue of the provisions of Act 30 of 1986 all vehicles were got transferred in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and hence the stand taken by the petitioners that these are their personal properties is not a bona fide stand and cannot be sustained at all. The learned also had explained the relevant provisions of the Code as amended by Act 46 of 1999 and also the Act 22 of 2002. As can be seen from the affidavits filed in support of the applications, praying leave of the Court and also praying for the reception of documents it is evident that the respondent-plaintiff i.e., the Nizam Sugar Limited, Latchayyapeta represented by its General Manager, Seethanagaram Mandal, Vizianagaram District had instituted the suit O.S.64 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili restraining the second defendant Sriram Sugar Industries Limited, Bobbili represented by its Secretary Sri R.V.G.K. Ranga Rao, Bobbili from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the vehicles mentioned in the plaint schedule stating that the said vehicles are vested with the plaintiff by virtue of the provisions of Act 30 of 1986 and an attempt is being made to take forcibly the possession of the said vehicles. The first petitioner herein Sri Rajah R.V.G.K. Ranga Rao, filed a written statement taking a stand that these vehicles are the personal properties of himself and his father and they had kept these vehicles in the premises of the Sugar Unit at Bobbili and the C Books are in their names and in the names of their employees and inasmuch as these books are misplaced and were traced recently, the applications for reception of the said documents and also praying for leave had been moved. It was also stated that they came to know about the plaintiff filing the suit O.S.11 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram which was dismissed relating to these vehicles and the certified copies of the documents also had been filed. In I.A.254 of 2003 in O.S.64 of 1999 the learned Judge made the following order.
"This petition is filed by the petitioners under Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) C.P.C. for grant of leave to the petitioners to receive the document filed along with I.A. No. 118 of 2003. After framing issues on 5:5.2006, it his Court has given time to both parties to file list of documents, witnesses by 6.6,2000. The petitioners have not produced the documents and kept quiet for all these days and now when the matter is posted for defendants, side evidence after closing the evidence of the plaintiff's side this petition is filed for grant of leave of the, Court to receive the documents.
As per the recent amendment of the CPC the leave of the Court not to the granted liberally. This is the suit of the year 1999 and listed identified cases as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court. If this type of petitions are allowed the, very purpose of the amendment to the CPC will be defeated. Moreover, the reasons mentioned in the petition for grant of the leave of the Court are not convincing at this stage. So, in these reasons I am not inclined to grant leave to the petitioners.
So, the petition is dismissed."
No doubt it is true that the leave to receive the documents need not be granted very liberally since the very object of introduction of the Amendment to the Code would be defeated. It is no doubt true that as per Section 2(l)(v) of Act 30 of 1986 "tractors, motor-cars, motor-trailers, motor-lorries, motor-cycles, jeeps, scooters, mopeds, trolly-lines, railway-siding" had been specified. It is pertinent to note that this is a question touching the merits and demerits of the matter to be decided on evidence while answering the relevant issues in the main suit. Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) of the Code specifies "documents which ought to be produced in the Court by the defendant under this rule but if not so produced shall not without the leave of the Court be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit." Act 22 of 2002 introduced the said provision by way of substitution. The importance of the adduction of documentary evidence and reception of documentary evidence in civil proceedings need not be overemphasized. It is true that in certain matters there will be deliberate negligence and lack of bona fides on the parties and at belated stage the documents would be produced before the Court. To have proper check and also safeguard no doubt the amending provisions had been introduced. It has to be noticed that these are all more procedural matters and on the ground of laches there cannot be shutting of evidence provided the Court is satisfied that there is some reason for non-production of the documents as specified and contemplated by the provisions of the Code. If reasons are explained normally the Court may have to lean in favour of receiving the documents since it is the fundamental principle that the parties should be permitted to let in all possible evidence which are relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the matters in controversy before the Court. Throwing the evidence on a technical ground and preventing a party producing the evidence, unless it is a deliberate attempt to delay the matters, normally cannot be permitted. It is a case where the certified copies of judgment and decree and the relevant C-Books had been produced. The learned Judge on the ground that a liberal view cannot be taken to grant leave, had refused the leave. This approach of the learned Judge, in my considered opinion, especially in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, is totally erroneous and unsustainable. It is also pertinent to note that the Courts are expected to be more careful and cautious in relation to reception of documents and instead of driving the parties to approach the revisional Court it is always better to grant leave and receive the documents permitting the parties to adduce necessary evidence and to expedite the matters and dispose of the main proceedings. By making such orders it is needless to observe that the proceedings will be further delayed. Viewed from any angle, the orders impugned in these revisions cannot be sustained and they are hereby set aside.
4. The civil revision petitions are accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.