Telangana High Court
Jitta Yadava Reddy And Another vs Jitta Srisailam Reddy And 6 Others on 9 November, 2022
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
C.R.P.NO.216 of 2022
ORDER:
Being aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.625 of 2021 in O.S.No.194 of 2016 on the file of VIII Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy, which herein after will be referred as trial Court by which the Court below allowed the petition filed by 4th defendant in the above referred suit and granted leave to him to file some documents, the petitioners who are respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in the said petition and who are defendant Nos. 5 and 6 in the main suit have filed this revision.
2. The petitioners have claimed that the Court below ought to have considered their representation that the land revenue receipt for the year 1993-94 in respect of Sy.No.8 of Thummakunta Village is a fabricated document as land revenue was abolished in the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State from 1985. Thereby, the trial Court could not have allowed the application to receive the alleged land revenue receipt. The petitioners further pleaded that the self declarations filed by the respondent/defendant No.4 before the Department under APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 are not relevant for deciding the other 2 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.216 of 2022 interlocutory application vide I.A.No.382 of 2020. They are not public documents within the meaning of Section 74 of Indian Evidence Act, or primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act. In view thereof, the trial Court could not have allowed the petition. Therefore, the petitioners sought for setting aside the order by which the request of the respondents was allowed.
3. As per the order impugned in the present revision, it appears that defendant No.4 in the main suit filed a petition before the trial Court under Order VII Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 of CPC and sought for leave to file Office copies of the documents for the purpose of marking those documents on his behalf. As per the affidavit in support of the said petition, he has claimed that I.A.No.382 of 2020 was filed by him for interim injunction to restrain the respondent No.9 therein from changing the nature of the schedule property. Subsequent to the said filing, he has traced out some documents which are very much relevant for disposal of I.A.No.382 of 2020. He could not file those documents at the earliest time as they were misplaced. Therefore, he sought for leave.
4. The said petition was opposed by the respondents. A counter affidavit by the petitioner No.1 herein was filed and 3 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.216 of 2022 disputed the genuineness of the documents. They have claimed that the land revenue was abolished by the then Chief Minister in 1985. Therefore, the question of any land revenue receipt existing in the name of the petitioner does not arise. They have also claimed that the documents filed by the petitioner before the employer about his properties are not relevant for establishing the case in the above referred petition for injunction. However, the Court below allowed the application with a finding that the parties shall be given equal opportunity to produce all the required documents in support of their respective claims.
5. Heard both parties.
6. Now the point for consideration is :
Whether the Court below rightly allowed the petition filed by respondent and leave granted is valid?
7. The above referred interlocutory application was filed by the respondent No.1 herein and defendant No.4 in the main suit. He has filed the petition under Order VII Rule 14(3) C.P.C. r/w Section 151 of C.P.C. Admittedly the petitioner in the said petition was not plaintiff but he filed the petition under Order VII Rule 14(3) of C.P.C. seeking leave to file certain documents. Order VII Rule 14(3) C.P.C. reads as follows :
4 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.216 of 2022 "A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit".
8. As could be seen from the averments made in the affidavit, the petitioner has filed one petition vide I.A.No.382 of 2020 against respondent No.9 therein i.e., defendant No.8 in the suit for interim injunction to restrain the defendant No.8 from changing the nature of schedule property. Therefore, it is very clear that the petitioner is not the plaintiff in the suit and he cannot maintain a petition under Order VII Rule 14(3) C.P.C. Since he is defendant, the question of petitioner suing the other side on the basis of some document does not arise. It is true even if a wrong provision is quoted, if the party is otherwise entitled to seek permission to file some documents, such request can be allowed. The Court below without raising any objection about the maintainability of such a petition under Order VII Rule 14(3) of C.P.C. granted leave.
9. In fact, the petitioner therein wanted to file the alleged land revenue receipt and copy of his own statement to the employer as required under CCA Rules. It appears the said documents sought to be produced as a proof of his possession on 5 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.216 of 2022 the property in an interlocutory application filed for injunction in a suit that was filed by the plaintiff.
10. The trial Court without raising any objection about its maintainability under Order VII Rule 14(3) C.P.C. and without considering the objections raised by the respondents/plaintiffs allowed the petition. In fact the trial Court did not assign any reasons for allowing the petition except saying that the parties to the suit shall be given equal opportunity to produce all the required documents. The Court made an observation in the order that the relevancy of the documents shall be decided during the enquiry in I.A.No.382 of 2020 i.e., injunction petition filed by the defendant No.4. There is no finding as to how a petition under Order VII Rule 14(3) by a defendant is maintainable, there is no finding as to how such a request for leave to file inadmissible documents can be allowed. In fact, though the petitioner is a defendant in the suit he cannot seek leave to file the above referred documents referred even under Order VIII Rule 9 C.P.C. Even if it is accepted that there is no bar for a defendant to file a petition for injunction, as could be seen from the affidavit filed in support of the petition, he has filed the said injunction petition not against the plaintiff but against another defendant of the same suit. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
6 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.216 of 2022
11. In the result, petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. No costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU Date: 09.11.2022 PLV 7 SSRN,J C.R.P. No.216 of 2022