Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
P T Srinivasa Raghavan vs Dubagunta Gowrisankar on 30 January, 2025
APHC010506532024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3311]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2752/2024
Between:
P T Srinivasa Raghavan ...PETITIONER
AND
Dubagunta Gowrisankar ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. C SUBODH
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. SARANU PHANI TEJA
The Court made the following:
2
BSB, J
C.R.P.No.2752 of 2024
ORDER:
This revision is preferred against the order, dated 07.11.2024 dismissing I.A.No.722 of 2024 in O.S.No.161 of 2017 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District Judge, SPSR Nellore District, filed under Section 94(e), Section 151 and Order VII rule 14(3) CPC to receive the petition listed documents on behalf of the petitioner/defendant by condoning the delay caused in filing the said documents.
2. The documents sought to be received are shown below:
i. Certificate obtained from Dr. D.Suresh, M.S (General Surgeon) AIIMS, DNB, Mch (Surgical Oncology), DNB Rai Memorial Medical Center, Chennai, along with the discharge summary.
ii. Certificate, dated 11.03.2024, obtained from Dr. R.Subramaniyan, M.D., DMRT Reg. No.31320, Chennai showing the defendant underwent radio therapy after CT planning and MOULD done on 10.12.2015. iii. Discharge summary obtained from Dr. Rai Memorial Medical Center, Chennai, showing the details of Radiation Therapy from 10.12.2015 to 03.02.2016.
iv. Discharge summary, dated 29.08.2015, obtained from Simhapuri Hospitals, along with the report of investigation and prescriptions.
v. Discharge summary, dated 03.12.2015 relating to the defendant showing that he has been admitted and treated 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2752 of 2024 for cercinoma left buccal cavity (surgery to stop bleeding due to opening of surgical sutures).
vi. Original letter, dated 24.04.2024, obtained from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Nellore and it is clearly showing the names of the plaintiff and the daughter of the defendant herein had approached them for reconstitution of above SKO/LDO dealership in favour of them, i.e., plaintiff and defendant.
vii. CC, dated 04.05.2013 obtained from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Nellore showing a letter issued by the plaintiff on behalf of M/s. Lakshmi Narasimham (Firm belonging to the defendant) to the Territory Manager, Nellore territory, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Dargamitta, Nellore requesting to allocate suspended PDS kerosene quota.
viii. CC, dated 07.01.2015 obtained from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited., Nellore in favour of the plaintiff in the suit and the daughter of the defendant showing the subject as reconstitution of M/s. Lakshmi Narasimham SKO. ix. CC, dated 16.04.2015, obtained from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Nellore, in favour of the plaintiff in the suit and the daughter of the defendant showing the subject as reconstitution of M/s. Lakshmi Narasimham SKO bearing the signature of the plaintiff as acknowledgment. x. CC, dated 11.07.2014 obtained from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., showing the payment of Rs.25,000/- towards reconstitution application fees from M/s. Lakshmi Narasimham.4
BSB, J C.R.P.No.2752 of 2024 xi. CC, dated 04.9.2014 obtained from Bharat Petroleum to the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Chennai stating that M/s. Lakshmi Narasimham is authorized dealership of BPCL stating that the SKO agency is going to install facilities in the new premises viz., Kakuturu village and panchayat in Sy.No.1-2 (land belonging to the defendant herein), Venkatachalam Mandal.
xii. CC, dated 04.09.2014, obtained from Bharat Petroleum to the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Chennai stating that M/s.Lakshmi Narasimham is authorized dealership of BPCL stating that SKO agency is going to install facilities from D.No.1168/2, Stonehousepet, Nellore to Kakuturu village and Panchayat in Sy.No.1-2 (land belonging to the defendant herein), Venkatachalam Mandal. xiii. CC, dated 09.02.2009, obtained from BPCL, a letter caused by the defendant herein as a proprietor to the depot manager, BPCL, Depot Surareddypalem, Ongole District. xiv. Original cheque book requisition vide Ac.No.0384 11011 4332 of Andhra Bank showing the defendant as authorized signatory for Lakshmi Narasimham Company. xv. Counter foil, dated 13.09.2024, bearing No.69F038100 of postal order Rs.10/- in favour of the Manager, Union Bank of India bearing A/c No.038411011004332 (formally Andhra Bank) applying a copy showing the defendant as authorized signatory of M/s. Lakshmi Narasimham, as a Proprietor under RTI Act.
xvi. A postal receipt, dated 13.09.2024, to the above." 5
BSB, J C.R.P.No.2752 of 2024
3. The case of the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the application, is as follows:
a. The plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of specific performance basing on a fabricated agreement of sale said to have been executed by the defendant on 22.10.2015. During the said period, the petitioner was being treated for Carcinoma (cancer) at Chennai. The petitioner was advised to file the medical record to prove his contention. As the said documents were misplaced, he recently obtained copy of the said documents from the hospital. The said documents clearly establish the falsity of the case of the plaintiffs. Those documents are very crucial and essential to prove the case of the defendant. There is no negligence on the part of the defendant in not filing them earlier.
Hence, this petition.
b. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter denying the petition averments and stating that the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 22.10.2015 was filed. The petitioner/defendant was examined himself as DW1. The petitioner/defendant fabricated those documents and created for the purpose of the case and filed this petition in order to drag on the proceedings. The petition is liable to be dismissed.6
BSB, J C.R.P.No.2752 of 2024
4. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the petition observing that the case is the oldest one identified for early disposal and already sufficient time had been granted to the parties to adduce their evidence and after completion of evidence on either side and submission of arguments for plaintiff, I.A.No.308 of 2024 under Order XIII rule 10 CPC had been filed to send for certain documents and the same had been dismissed with a speaking order. Thereafter, the present petition was filed. The trial Court further observed that even if the proposed documents are received on record, no purpose would be served.
5. Hence, the defendant preferred this revision petition.
6. In the grounds of revision, while reiterating his case, it is further urged that the plaintiff is no other than the brother-in-law of the defendant's brother and in that connection, the plaintiff used to manage family and business affairs of the defendant and that even if the petition is allowed, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent/ plaintiff.
7. The main contention of the petitioner is that the documents proposed to be filed are required to establish that the petitioner suffered cancer during the relevant period and was under treatment and also that the respondent/plaintiff continued to deal with the business transactions even after the date of the suit agreement of sale as stated in the 7 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2752 of 2024 defence taken in the written statement, and therefore, the documents are very much relevant. It is further contended that the reason for not being able to earlier file these documents is that some of the documents were secured before filing the petition and some other documents were mixed in the files and could not be traced, and as such, the trial Court ought to have allowed the petition.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner should show valid reason for not filing these documents along with the written statement and how and when these documents were obtained and are relevant to the case. It is further contended that a vague reason for not filing the documents earlier is not acceptable to allow the petition.
9. Insofar as the relevancy of the documents for the purpose of receiving them in evidence is concerned, as rightly contended by the petitioner, the documents at Sl.Nos.1 to 5 are relevant to prove his health condition during the period close to the date of the agreement of sale. The documents at Sl.Nos.6 to 16 are relevant for the purpose of showing continuation of transactions which have relevancy to the defence taken by the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that they are irrelevant.
8
BSB, J C.R.P.No.2752 of 2024
10. Insofar as the reason for not being able to file these documents is concerned, of course, the petitioner stated that they could not be filed as they were misplaced. The endeavor of the Court shall be to allow the parties to place on record all such evidence necessary to adjudicate the dispute on merits rather than adjourn the case at the threshold on a technical course. If there is any lapse on the part of the petitioner, the same can be compensated by imposing some terms as costs by the petitioner payable to the respondent. Without properly appreciating the above reasons, the trial Court dismissed the petition. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
11. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 07.11.2024, passed in I.A.No.722 of 2024 in O.S.No.161 of 2017. As a sequel, I.A.No.722 of 2024 is allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J 30-01-2025 RAR