Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
R Trideep vs A Annapurna on 14 September, 2022
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3784 and 3778 of 2019
COMMON ORDER:
The 2nd defendant before the learned trial Court filed these two civil revision petitions. C.R.P.No.3784 of 2019 questions the correctness of order dated 03.12.2019 of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor in I.A.No.311 of 2019 in O.S.No.386 of 2008. C.R.P.No.3778 of 2019 questions the correctness of the order dated 03.12.2019 of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor in I.A.No.312 of 2019 in O.S.No.386 of 2008. Both the revisions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Both revisions are intimately connected and emanating from the same Court and the same suit and therefore, it is appropriate to dispose of them by a common order.
2. From the material placed before this Court and from the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, the following facts are not in dispute:
The suit for partition was filed by two plaintiffs and the plaintiffs claimed 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. Some of the sharers and persons, who purchased some of the properties from some of the sharers, are the defendants in the suit. Both parties put in their pleadings and issues were settled 2 Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.3784 & 3778 of 2019 and trial commenced and plaintiffs adduced their evidence. Defendants except defendant No.2 also adduced their evidence and the suit was coming up for hearing arguments on both sides and it was at that stage, defendant No.2 had come up with two interlocutory applications filed before the learned trial Court. He stated that his counsel advised him to secure a family member certificate and voters list and he secured them and seeking leave of the Court for reception of those documents he filed I.A.No.312 of 2019 under Order VIII Rule 1(a)(3) C.P.C. Stating that when the opportunity to give evidence came to him during the course of trial, he did not lead evidence since by then he could not secure the documents and now that he intended to produce his evidence and therefore, he filed a petition under Section 151 C.P.C. requesting the Court to reopen the evidence on his behalf. As against those applications of defendant No.2, plaintiffs did not offer any counters. However, defendant Nos.3 and 4 in the suit resisted the prayers and offered counter. After enquiring into both the applications and after considering the material on record and the arguments submitted, the learned trial Court found no merit in both the applications and dismissed them. Grieved by it, defendant No.2 in the suit has come up with these two revisions.3
Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.3784 & 3778 of 2019
3. Learned counsel for contesting respondents questioned the merit of these revisions and supported the impugned orders. Learned counsel on both sides submitted oral arguments.
4. The point for determination is:
"Whether the refusal of the trial Court in not granting leave to file documents and in preventing defendant No.2 from adducing evidence is in accordance with law or not?"
5. Point:
Each party to a suit is entitled to take a stand on the subject matter of the dispute and can sustain his view point by producing necessary documents and by adducing necessary parol evidence. However, in performing those actions, the method and manner of doing it is governed by procedural laws. What really prompted the learned trial Court in dismissing the prayers of the revision petitioner is that this defendant No.2 in his written statement admitted the claim of the plaintiffs and prayed for decreeing the suit in which his shares are also to be considered and be granted. According to the learned trial Court, such pleadings of defendant No.2 made him to think that defendant No.2 was sailing with plaintiffs. That observation is not challenged in these revisions. It was in those circumstances 4 Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.3784 & 3778 of 2019 learned trial Court recorded an observation that a defendant, who is sailing with the plaintiffs, is entitled to adduce evidence, but his entitlement comes soon after completion of evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs and before the other contesting defendants start producing their evidence. Learned trial Court observed that this defendant No.2 was ordered by the trial Court to give evidence on his behalf soon after the completion of evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs. At that time defendant No.2 did not adduce evidence. He waited and allowed the contesting defendants to complete their evidence and it was then he came up with the applications seeking permission to adduce evidence. These observations are also not challenged in these revisions. That according to the learned trial Court is against law that is contained in M/s. Lakshmi Priya Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd., v. M/s. Ramalingam Mills Ltd.1. It was for that reason it dismissed both the applications.
6. While passing the impugned orders, learned trial Court also made an observation that this defendant No.2 on being offered the witnesses on behalf of the plaintiffs for cross- examination did not choose to cross-examine them also. It was 1 (2016) 2 ALT 537 (A.P.) 5 Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.3784 & 3778 of 2019 another factor that impelled the learned trial Court to conclude that this defendant No.2 is sailing with the plaintiffs. In these revisions, it is urged that it is the choice of defendant No.2 either to cross-examine plaintiffs' witnesses or not and simply because he did not cross-examine plaintiffs' witnesses, he cannot be prevented from adducing evidence on his own behalf. It is further urged that since the documents were misplaced, his counsel said to him that he could lead evidence subsequently. It is these two reasons which the learned counsel argued before this Court and sought for upsetting the impugned orders. This Court finds no merit in the contentions.
7. Fair trial is prerequisite for dispensation of justice. How evidence is to be collected is a matter of law and when a party could be permitted to adduce evidence is also a matter of law. Looking at the facts and circumstances in a given case the procedure has to be applied and if so required can be moulded by the trial Court provided the object of doing it is to attain justice through means that are proper and fair. Depending upon the manner in which issues are framed, law permits introduction of evidence by one or the other party. In the case at hand, it is undisputed that the claim of plaintiffs and the claim of defendant No.2 are common and thus, they are sailing 6 Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.3784 & 3778 of 2019 together. Therefore, defendant No.2 though arrayed as one of the defendants in the suit though filed a written statement, the theme and substance indicates and allows the Court and law to think that he is to be considered as one another plaintiff and such consideration is for the purpose of having the trial fairly conducted. After the plaintiffs completed their evidence in chief, it is up to each of the contesting parties to cross-examine or not to cross-examine the witnesses for plaintiffs. Be that as it may. As to when defendant No.2 and other defendants should commence their evidence, the trial Court held that it was soon after completion of plaintiffs' side evidence. It invited defendant No.2 to adduce evidence, but he did not choose to lead evidence and it is only then the trial Court invited the contesting defendants to offer their evidence. Now the question is, did defendant No.2 obtain leave of the Court that he could be permitted to adduce evidence after contesting defendants adduced their evidence. The answer is in the negative as defendant No.2 never sought for such leave. Thus, what happened is that excepting defendant No.2 rest of the contesting parties produced their respective evidence and it is then defendant No.2 wanted to have his evidence introduced which according to the contesting defendants is to fill up all those 7 Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.3784 & 3778 of 2019 lapses that are available in the case of the plaintiffs. Precisely to prevent such acts which could cause prejudice to the contesting defendants, this Court in M.Hymavathi v. M.Koteswara Rao2 held that defendants sailing with plaintiffs cannot be permitted to adduce evidence subsequent to the evidence on behalf of the contesting defendants. Nothing contrary is shown by the revision petitioner. So far as leave for production of documents is concerned, the sworn affidavit of defendant No.2 filed before learned trial Court does not indicate why he could not list these documents in his written statement and why he did not file the documents and their copies as ordained by Order VIII C.P.C. and did not say when did he find the documents misplaced and when did he really trace them once again and how those documents are relevant for the facts in issue. Thus, he went vague in his affidavit. Vagueness would never be cherished by a Court, which is adjudicating valuable civil rights of parties. The contention of defendant No.2 before the trial Court as well as here was that it was on the advice of his counsel that he waited till the other defendants completed their evidence. He must thank his advocate for having not shown obedience to law which costed him his 2 2006 (5) ALD 328 (A.P.) 8 Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.3784 & 3778 of 2019 evidence. He did not choose to file the affidavit of his counsel to justify his statement that he was so advised by his counsel. Thus, he does not want anything unpleasant with his counsel but requests the Court to close its eyes to the law and principles. Learned trial Court rightly refused to get convinced with such submissions. In these revisions, learned counsel could not show as to why the law recorded by the trial Court and the discretion exercised by the learned trial Court could be called as incorrect. Sitting in this revision, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the orders of the trial Court. Therefore, the point is answered against the revision petitioner.
8. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed confirming the orders dated 03.12.2019 in I.A.Nos.311 and 312 of 2019 in O.S.No.386 of 2008 on the file of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 14.09.2022 Ivd 9 Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.3784 & 3778 of 2019 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3784 and 3778 of 2019 Date: 14.09.2022 Ivd