Telangana High Court
Aitha Ravinder vs Illandula Praneeth Kumar on 3 July, 2023
Author: Lalitha Kanneganti
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
Civil Revision Petition Nos.1334 and 1346 of 2023
COMMON ORDER :
These Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the common order passed in I.A.Nos.103 and 104 of 2023 in O.S.No.1 of 2014, whereby the Court below has dismissed the said applications, which are filed by the petitioner requesting to receive certain documents.
2. When these matters came up on 24.04.2023, recording the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even before filing of the written statement by the respondents/defendants, the petitioner has filed I.A.Nos.103 and 104 of 2023 for receiving the documents and the said applications were dismissed on the ground that the documents that are filed by the petitioner are xerox copies. He submits that the petitioner has filed certified copies. In the light of the said submission, there shall be stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.1 of 2014 pending on the file of the Court below.
2 LK, J C.R.P.Nos.1334 and 1346 of 2023
3. This Court has permitted the petitioner to take out notices to the respondents and he has taken out notices and there is appearance on behalf of the 1st respondent, whereas on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken out notices both on the parties, as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 before the Court below. The notices are served and he has filed proof of service. There is no appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5. On behalf of respondent No.3 the notice sent on his address was returned with an endorsement 'insufficient address' and the notice was served on the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 before the Court below.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he has filed the suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession and the suit is of the year, 2014. In the year, 2014 itself written statement was filed. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed applications to receive rejoinder and additional documents. The application to receive rejoinder was allowed and now those two applications were dismissed by the Court below. It is submitted that the Court below 3 LK, J C.R.P.Nos.1334 and 1346 of 2023 failed to appreciate the fact that earlier the applications filed for receiving additional documents, which are xerox copies, was dismissed as the originals were filed in another suit i.e. O.S.No.37 of 2015. He submits that as the suit is for declaration of title, unless and until those documents are received by the Court below, it would cause severe hardship to the petitioner/plaintiff. Without considering all these issues more on technicalities and more on the ground of latches, the Court below has dismissed the said applications. He submits that it is settled law that when a particular issue goes to the root of the matter, the Court has to consider the same in the interest of justice.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the application seeking permission to file rejoinder was filed in the year 2018, and till 2023 the petitioner has not even proceeded with the matter and the suit is of the year 2014, nearly after nine years after the suit is filed, now the petitioner has filed the applications. He submits that the Court below having considered all these aspects has dismissed the said applications.
4 LK, J C.R.P.Nos.1334 and 1346 of 2023
6. According to the petitioner, he is seeking declaration of title on certain important documents, which are relevant, were filed before the Court below in O.S.No.37 of 2015, as such, he has filed Xerox copies earlier and that application was dismissed. Now, after receiving the documents, these applications were filed and the Court below has dismissed the said applications. This Court, from the rejoinder, has observed that the earlier suit in O.S.No.142 of 2005 was dismissed on 18.02.2016 and when those documents were in his possession why he kept quiet till 2018 without filing the documents is not known. Having filed the petition in the year, 2018 why he kept quiet without pursuing the said application is not known. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it would cause hardship to the petitioner, if the documents are not received, that itself cannot be a ground to allow the applications. While allowing the application, the Court has to balance the interest of both the parties for a litigation, which the petitioner has initiated in the year, 2014. However, the Court cannot permit it to continue and where the litigant is not vigilant in proceeding with the matter, which is very much apparent from the order 5 LK, J C.R.P.Nos.1334 and 1346 of 2023 passed by the Court below and from the facts as narrated above. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
8. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this revision petition, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ SMT. LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J Date: 03.07.2023 svl/sus