Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Nyayapathi Srinivas Raghavan vs Burra Adinarayana Sastry on 23 August, 2012
Author: Noushad Ali
Bench: Noushad Ali
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.R.P.No.1639 of 2010 23.08.2012 Nyayapathi Srinivas Raghavan Burra Adinarayana Sastry Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Tarlada Raja Sekhar Rao Counsel for Respondent: Sri A.Rama Rao <Gist : >Head Note: ?Cases referred: NIL ORDER :
1) Heard Sri Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the Respondent.
2) This revision petition is directed against the order, dated 23-02-2010 in I.A.No.2180 of 2009 in O.S.No.29 of 2007 allowing the petition filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) C.P.C.
3) The respondent herein filed O.S.No.29 of 2007 for specific performance against the petitioner herein. Approximately two years after the institution of the suit, the respondent-plaintiff filed the instant I.A. seeking leave of the Court under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) C.P.C. and to receive the documents enumerated in the petition with a prayer to condone the delay in filing the same. The petition was resisted by the petitioner-defendant inter alia on the ground that documents are sought to be filed in I.A. at a belated stage and the delay was not properly explained.
4) A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Court below allowed the petition by passing a cryptic order even without considering the objections. The order is as follows :
"Heard.
Petition is reopened. Counter is filed. Documents can be received as per Law.
Hence, petition is allowed."
5) In my considered opinion, the aforesaid order, which has not given any reasons for allowing the petition, is not sustainable. Under Order 7, Rule 14 C.P.C. where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon a document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. Under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) C.P.C., a document, which has not been produced, shall not without the leave of Court be received in evidence. Thus, though the Court is competent to receive a document and the parties are entitled to produce the same at a later stage, leave of the Court is necessary. The leave of the Court is not an empty formality or that the leave would be granted for mere asking. Whoever seeks to submit documents subsequent to filing of the suit, is under a duty to explain why the documents could not be filed when the plaint was presented. Equally, a duty is cast upon the Court to consider the circumstances for receiving the documents at a belated stage before granting leave. This exercise necessarily implies that the Court should consider the matter in the light of the pleas taken by the respective parties and pass an order by giving valid reasons.
If reasons are given, it will serve twin purposes viz., it will disclose the mind of the Court for exercising powers one way or the other and the parties feel convinced of the correctness of the order.
6) In the instant case, absolutely no reasons have been recorded, though considerable objections were raised by the petitioner-defendant.
7) In that view of the matter, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. The Court shall hear both the parties and pass a reasoned order. It is directed that order be passed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of the order.
8) The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.
9) In view of the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, C.R.P. M.P. No.2191 of 2010 is disposed of as unnecessary.
________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J.
23rd August, 2012.