Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Setti Siddamma vs S. Ramulu And Anr. on 16 April, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(5)ALD14
ORDER C.Y. Somayajulu, J.
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 19-2-2004 in I.A. No. 27 of 2004 in O.S. No. 42 of 1999 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Narayanpet, filed by the respondents, who are the defendants in the suit, the plaintiff in the suit preferred this revision.
2. Respondents filed the aforesaid petition under Rule 1-A(3) of Order 8 read with 151 CPC to receive four documents alleging that the existence of those documents came to light when a search was being made in the house and that those documents could not be produced earlier for that reason and so they may be permitted to produce the documents, after condoning the delay in filing them.
3. Revision petitioner filed a lengthy counter inter alia contending that the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer which is sought to be produced as one of the documents was set aside in appeal proceedings by the Revenue Divisional Officer, who in the same proceedings imposed fine as the person who made entries in the revenue records and so there are no grounds to receive the documents.
4. The Court below holding that the respondents could show sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the documents, allowed the petition and received the documents subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility. Hence, this revision petition.
5. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that respondents who ought to have produced the documents along with their written statement, having so failed to produce, created a false story and came up with this petition suppressing the fact that an appeal preferred against the order granting validation, which is sought to be produced as one of the documents, was allowed and thereby order sought to be produced stood set aside by the appellate authority and in fact revision preferred against the order in appeal also was dismissed, and so it is clear that one of the documents sought to be produced is an order which is non-existing and so the Court below was in error in receiving the documents without considering the detailed counter filed by the revision petitioner. It is his contention that receipt of documents by the Court below tantamounts to marking of the documents and so revision petitioner would be put to great prejudice and hardship if the order under revision is allowed to stand and so the order under revision is liable to be set aside. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that the Court below having been satisfied that respondents property explained the reasons delay, received the documents subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility, and since did not commit any error in receiving the documents, the revision is not maintainable.
6. Since the written statement in the suit was filed long prior to 2002, and since Rule 1-A of Order 8 CPC, which came into operation with effect from 1-7-2002, by virtue of coming into force of Act 46 of 1999, does not apply to the proceedings in the suit, because Section 32(2)(1) of Act 46 of 1999 reads;
"the provisions of Rules 1 and 1-A of Order VIII of the First Schedule as substituted or inserted by Section 18 of this Act shall not apply to a written statement filed and presented before the Court immediately before the commencement of Section 18."
7. In view thereof the petition presented by the respondents before the lower Court should be treated as a petition filed under Rule 2, of Order 13 C.P.C., which was in force till the coming into force of Act 46 of 1999. As per Rule 1 of Order 13 C.P.C. documents in possession or power of the parties have to be produced by the parties at or before the settlement of issues. If they are not so produced, Rule 2 of Order 13 C.P.C. (as it stood prior to the coming into force of Act 46 of 1999) empowered the Court to receive the same on a good cause being shown to its satisfaction for their non-production earlier.
8. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for revision petitioner that receipt of documents under Rule 2 of Order 13 C.P.C, tantamounts to admitting them in evidence. Merely because a document is filed into Court, it does not mean that the said document is admitted into evidence. Admission of document in evidence is entirely different from receiving of a document into Court either under Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order 13 CPC. This principle applies even after the coming into force of Act 46 of 1999. As per Rule 1-A of Order 8 CPC., which came into force by virtue of Act 46 of 1999, defendants have to file the documents, on which they are relying, along with their written statement(s). If they do not file the documents along with their written statement (s), they can seek leave of the Court to file documents at a subsequent point of time by explaining the reasons for their failure to file them within these written statement(s). A document filed along with written statement cannot be treated as a document admitted into evidence merely because it is filed into Court along with the written statement. Similarly when a document is filed into Court at a belated stage, after obtaining the leave of the Court, it does not mean that document is automatically admitted into evidence. So, the assumption on the part of revision petitioner that the receipt of documents by the Court below tantamounts to admission of document in evidence, without considering the truth, validity and genuineness of those documents, is without any substance and is a misconception. To elucidate if a document filed into Court before framing of issues is improperly stamped and is not registered as per the Registration Act, it does not mean that it can be admitted into evidence without considering the question of stamp duty and registration. Even in case of documents which are filed into Court before framing of issues, or along with the written statement or plaint their genuineness, truth an validity and if they are properly stamped and registered can be considered at a later stage. This Court in K. Santha Kumari v. K. Suseela Devi, , held that stamp duty in respect of an improperly stamped document filed in Court has to be considered at the time of admission of the document into evidence under proviso (a) to Section 35 of the Stamp Act and that the Court errs in ordering payment of stamp duty and penalty before the stage of admission of document in evidence is reached. So the question whether a document filed into Court is admissible in evidence or not, has to be considered only when it is sought to be introduced in evidence, but not when it is sought to be received by the Court. In this case, the Court below after having held that respondents have shown sufficient grounds for condonation of delay, specifically observed that the documents are received subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility.
9. It is no doubt true that the revision petitioner in his detailed counter filed in the Trial Court, contended that the order validating the document was set aside in appeal and that the revision preferred against the said appellate order was dismissed and that a writ petition questioning the order in revision is pending in this Court. As stated earlier, the Court at the stage of receipt of document need not consider the effect of the order in appeal or revision or the pendency of the writ questioning the order in revision. As stated earlier, had the respondents produced the documents, now sought to be filed into Court, at or before settlement of issues as contemplated by Rule 1 of Order 13 CPC, revision petitioner could not have opposed their being received into Court. At the cost of repetition it has to be stated that receipt of documents either under Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order 13 C.P.C. into Court, is different from their being received in evidence. The Court below did not commit any error in not taking into consideration the pleas raised by the revision petitioner in his counter in detail, as it is not the stage to consider those objections. Those objections would have relevance, and can be considered only when the document is sought to be introduced in evidence. In a petition under Rule 2 of Order 13 C.P.C. the only point to be considered is whether the applicant has shown a good cause for not filing the documents earlier or not. If the Court is satisfied with the cause shown, it can receive the documents by condoning the delay. Their admissibility in evidence or their evidentiary value will have to be considered at a later stage when they are sought to be admitted in evidence.
10. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that the documents referred to in the counter, in fact, were marked as exhibits in the suit, during the course of evidence of the revision petitioner, cannot be accepted because the counter-affidavit of the revision petitioner filed in the Trial Court does not state that the documents were already marked as exhibits in the suit. That apart if the documents are already marked as exhibits there is no need for the respondents to file a petition to receive them into Court by condoning the delay.
11. Since the Court below was satisfied with the explanation of delay and received the documents subject to proof, relevancy and question of admissibility, I find no grounds to interfere with the order under revision and in my considered opinion this revision is bad and is but an abuse of, process of Court.
12. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs. Advocate fee is fixed to Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred only).