Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Majji Atchutarama Gandhi vs Chittumuri Savithri on 23 February, 2022
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
C.R.P.No.1309 of 2021
ORDER:
The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.429 of 2011 before the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 25.09.2006, which is said to have been executed by the petitioners in her favour. After the evidence of the respondent had been completed and when the matter was coming for the evidence of the petitioners, I.A.No.62 of 2021 has been filed by the petitioners seeking leave of the trial Court to receive certain documents. These documents are said to be a photo copy of an agreement of sale dated 06.05.2006 and another sale agreement dated 15.08.2006 showing different sale considerations and that these documents are necessary to prove the case of the petitioners. It was further stated that these documents came to light when the 4th petitioner found these documents while clearing papers in an old trunk. The said application, after contest, was dismissed by the trial Court by an order dated 08.11.2021. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present revision petition.
2. The trial Court held that the petitioners had been obtaining adjournments on various counts and had filed the present application after having taken a number of adjournments. The trial Court considered the original sale agreement dated 15.08.2006, which is said to be an agreement of sale executed between the 2nd petitioner herein and the father of the 2nd petitioner in favour of the respondent herein in relation to the suit schedule property. The photo copy of the agreement dated 2 RRR,J C.R.P.No.1309 of 2021 06.05.2006 is also said to be a sale agreement executed between the 2 nd petitioner and her father in favour of the respondent.
3. The trial Court took the view that normally an agreement of sale executed between the parties would be in possession of the buyer and disbelieved the contention of the petitioners that these documents were found in an old trunk. The trial Court also went into the question of admissibility of the documents to arrive at a finding and dismissed the petition.
4. Sri Nagaraju Naguru, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the trial Court could not have gone into the question of admissibility of the documents at the stage of receiving the documents and the only issue that the trial Court could have gone into as to whether the delay in filing these documents was properly explained by the petitioners or not. He further submits that the petitioners were unaware of these documents at a prior stage and came to know of the documents only when the 4th petitioner had found these documents in an old trunk. He would submit that the trial Court ought to have taken a liberal view and allowed the said application so as to enable the petitioners to set out their case properly.
5. Sri M. Devi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the contentions raised by the petitioners are clearly far fetching and unbelievable. He would submit that the trial Court had not committed any error in disbelieving the version of the petitioners and in dismissing the application. He would further rely upon the judgments of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh and erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh reported in Ravi Satish vs. 3 RRR,J C.R.P.No.1309 of 2021 Edala Durga Prasad and Ors.,1 and R. Saraswathi vs. P. Rajamanikyam and Ors.2. He specifically relies upon these judgments to contend that the documents that the petitioners ought to have produced are at the time of filing of their written statement and could have sought leave to file them later only by giving a valid reason for not filing these documents along with the written statement. He would submit that the petitioners have not given any valid reason except coming up with a story of having found the papers in an old trunk at a belated stage.
6. The provisions of Order VIII Rule 1-A(1)and (3) stipulates that the defendants in a suit have to produce the documents that they would be relying upon, along with written statement. If any documents are sought to be produced later, the same can only be done by obtaining leave of the Court.
7. The Courts have considered the issue of when leave of the Court can be given for production of documents at a later stage. The aforesaid two judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent would suffice to set out the conditions in which such leave can be granted. A reading of these two judgments would show that such leave can be granted only when the said defendants can demonstrate that they could not have filed these documents earlier either because they were not within their knowledge or because they were unable to produce these documents for reasons beyond their control.
8. In the present case, the documents that are sought to be produced by the petitioners are stated to have been discovered at the time when their evidence was being recorded. This contention cannot be 1 2009 (3) ALT 236 2 2015 (5) ALT 527 4 RRR,J C.R.P.No.1309 of 2021 accepted for a simple reason. The parties to both the documents, which are now sought to be produced, are said to be the petitioners and the respondent. In such circumstances, the petitioners would definitely remember the execution of such documents and would have raised this issue in their written statement. It appears that no such mention has been made. Further the agreement of sale would be in the custody of the respondent as the buyer, and no explanation is given as to how such documents were retained in the custody of the petitioners.
9. For all the aforesaid reasons, the version put forward by the petitioners that these two documents were found in an old trunk at a belated stage, is not credible and would have to be rejected. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the trial Court.
10. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
23rd February, 2022 Js.
5 RRR,J C.R.P.No.1309 of 2021 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO C.R.P.No.1309 of 2021 23rd February, 2021 Js.