Telangana High Court
U Venkatramma vs V. Ravinder Reddy on 24 January, 2019
Author: M.S.Ramachandra Rao
Bench: M.S.Ramachandra Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
C.R.P.No.57 of 2019
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. This Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt.22-11-2018 in I.A.No.1015 of 2018 in O.S.No.301 of 2012 of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.
3. Petitioners are defendants in the suit. The suit was filed by the respondents against petitioners for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with their alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties.
4. Written Statement was filed by the petitioners opposing the suit claim.
5. The 1st petitioner later filed O.S.No.103 of 2015 against respondents also for permanent injunction in respect of the same property. Both suits have been clubbed together according to the learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. After the evidence of respondents was closed in O.S.No.301 of 2012, petitioners filed I.A.No.1015 of 2018 under Order VIII Rule 1 (A) (3) to receive certain documents and mark them as Exhibit 'B' series. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it was contended by the petitioners that they could not file these documents 2 MSR,J C.R.P.No.57 of 2019 as they were not traceable at the time of filing of the Written Statement and so, they were later obtained from the concerned officers and are being filed.
7. This application was opposed by the respondents contending that they had been fabricated subsequent to the filing of the suit and after the respondents/plaintiffs' evidence was closed, no documents can be received. It was also pointed out that petitioners had not assigned any reason why they could not file the same along with the Written Statement.
8. By order dt.22-11-2018, the Court below rejected the said application. It held that though petitioners contended that the documents were traced at the time of filing of Written Statement, they did not state when they traced the documents. After referring to the documents sought to be filed, the Court below observed that it became practice for the parties to file documents at belated stage by claiming as if the documents could not be filed earlier, that they are traced recently and that in most applications of such nature, there is no mention when the documents were misplaced or when they were again traced or from where they were traced. It therefore held that delay was not properly explained.
9. Assailing the same, this Revision Petition is filed.
10. Though learned counsel for the petitioners sought to contend that grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioners, if the 3 MSR,J C.R.P.No.57 of 2019 documents are not received in evidence, learned counsel for the petitioners did not dispute that most of these documents had been filed in O.S.No.103 of 2015 which is being tried along with the present suit. If so, the petitioners cannot say that the documents were not traceable at the time when they filed Written Statement in O.S.No.301 of 2012. It was incumbent on the part of the petitioners to file documents on which they rely along with the Written Statement filed by them. Grant of leave under Order VIII Rule 1 (A) (3) CPC is not automatic and a party, who is negligent in filing documents which are required to be filed along with the plaint/Written Statement, cannot seek such indulgence without showing sufficient cause.
11. In my considered opinion, the Court below has correctly exercised it jurisdiction in refusing to allow I.A.No.1015 of 2018 and in rejecting it.
12. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
13. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO Date: 24-01-2019 kvr