Telangana High Court
Padala Srinivasa Reddy vs Smt. Mary Chacko Died As Per Lrs on 3 January, 2022
Author: Satish Chandra Sharma
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
CRP.NO.7081 OF 2018
ORDER:(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma) The present civil revision petition is arising out of the order dated 12.10.2018 passed in I.A.No.610 of 2018 in C.O.S.No.251 of 2017.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that a civil suit was preferred by Padala Srinivasa Reddy against one Smt. Mary Chacko for recovery of money and during the pendency of the civil suit, Smt. Mary Chacko expired. An application was preferred for substitution of legal representatives and Jaswanth Palolil, who is son of Smt. Mary Chacko, was brought on record. During the pendency of the civil suit, an application was preferred under Order VII Rule 14(3) of C.P.C for bringing some documents on record by the wife of Jashwanth Palolil and the same has been allowed. The order allowing the application dated 12.10.2018 is under challenge in the present revision.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Order VIII Rule 1-A entitles a defendant to file an application and not a witness.
Order VIII Rule 1-A of C.P.C is reproduced as under:-
"1-A. Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him: (1) Where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set-off or counter-claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement.2
(2) Where any such document is not in possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.
(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.
(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to documents-
(a) produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or
(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory."
The aforesaid statutory provision of law certainly empowers the defendant to file an application for receiving documents on record and in the present case, no such application has been preferred by the defendant. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid statutory provision of law, the trial Court has erred in allowing the present application. This Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. However, the defendant shall certainly be at liberty to file appropriate application under Order VIII Rule 1-A of C.P.C.
With the aforesaid, the civil revision petition stands disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ _______________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 03.01.2022 JSU