Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nagarapu Rama Murthy, vs Nagarapu Rama Murthy, on 30 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 636. 637 AND 638 OF 2023
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 636 OF 207.-^
Between:
"V Venkata Rama Rao, Hindu, Cultivation
D?stric1^ V'll^g®- Korukonda Mandal. East Godavari
58®Yea?s Rao. Hindu, Cultivation, aged
District ' Village. Korukonda Mandal. East Godavari
...Petitioners
AND
57 R®°' Cultivation, aged
I'Li Godavari Soethanagaram Mandal.
rnSP^ satyanarayana Murthy, S/o. late Surya Rao, Hindu,
RrIST' yPi C Raghudevapuram Village.
Seethanagaram Mandal. East Godavari District.
...Respondents
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in
pteasedTo
pleased to a^^ow^h^'®''
allow the revision by setting-aside the '''® Court may be
Orders dt 21-02-2023
sfnl r^" O.S.No.196 of 2017 of the Court of I AddI
202T byb^raiii
2023, calling f'
for the records of the suit in"'®''®'>'' ®"°'"'"gof 2017.
O.S.No.196 "1® l■A.No.29 of
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. P RAJESH BABU
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI. SUREPALLI MADHAVA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 637 OF 2023
Between:
1.
Nagarapu Rama Murthy, s/o Venkata Rama Rao, Hindu, Cultivation
aged 65 yrs, D.no.1-3. Koti Village. Korukonda Mandal. East Godavari
District.
2.
Nagarapu Mariyya, s/o Venkata Rama Rao, Hindu, Cultivation, aged 58
yrs, D.no.1-2. Koti Village..Korukonda Mandal. East Godavari District.
...Petitioners
AND
1.
Nagarapu Rama Murthy, s/o late Surya Rao, Hindu, Cultivation, aged
Raghudevapuram Village. Seethanagaram Mandal
East Godavari District.
2.
Nagarapu Satyanarayana Murthy, s/o late Surya Rao, Hindu
Cultivation, aged 57 yrs, D.no.4-92. Raghudevapuram Village
Seethanagaram Mandal. East Godavari District.
...Respondents
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in
the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be
pleased to allow the revision by setting-aside the Orders dt 21-02-2023
passed in I.A.No.31 of 2023 in O.S.No.196 of 2017 of the Court of I AddI
Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram, thereby allowing the I.A.No.31 of
2023, by calling for the records of the suit in O.S.No.196 of 2017.
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. P RAJESH BABU
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI. SUREPALLI MADHAVA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 638 OF 207.-^
Between:
Venkata Rama Rao, Hindu, Cultivation
District^ D.no.1-3. Koti Village. Korukonda Mandal. East Godavari
Rao- Hindu, Cultivation, aged 58
yrs, D.no.1-2. Koti Village. Korukonda Mandal. East Godavari District.
...Petitioners
AND
1. Nagarap^u Rama Murthy, s/o late Surya Rao, Hindu, Cultivation, aged
57 yr^ D no.4-92. Raghudevapuram Village. Seethanagaram Mandal
bast Godavari District.
2. Nagarapu Satyanarayana Murthy, s/o late Surya Rao, Hindu
Cultivation, aged 57 yrs, D.no.4-92. Raghudevapuram Village
Seethanagaram Mandal. East Godavari District.
...Respondents
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in
the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be
pleased to allow the revision by setting-aside the Orders dt 21-02-2023
passed in I.A.No.30 of 2023 in O.S.No.196 of 2017 of the Court of I Addl.
Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram, thereby allowing the I.A.No.30 of
2023, by calling for the records of the suit in O.S.No.196 of 2017
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI P. RAJESH BABU
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SUREPALLI MADHAVA RAO
The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.636. 637 and 638 of 2023
COMMON ORDER :
The civil revision petition No.636 of 2023 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 21.02.2023 dismissing the petition in I.A.No.29 of 2023 in O.S.No.196 of 2017 on the file of Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram filed by the petitioners under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'C.P.C') to reopen the main suit to enable the petitioners/plaintiffs to adduce further evidence in the suit.
2. The civil revision petition No.637 of 2023 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 21.02.2023 dismissing the petition in I.A.No.31 of 2023 in O.S.No.196 of 2017 on the file of Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 14(3) r/w Section 151 of C.P.C. to file the certified copy of compromise decree dated 23.09.2004 in O.S.No.99 of 1992 on the file of Court of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram along with C.C. of compromise petition and plaint schedule attached thereto.
3. The civil revision petition No.638 of 2023 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders dated 21.02.2023 dismissing the petition in I.A.No.30 of 2023 in O.S.No.196 of 2017 on the file of Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram filed by the petitioners under Order XVIII Rule 17 and Section 151 of C.P.C. to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of giving further evidence in respect to the additional document filed along with a separate petition.
2BSB, J CRP.Nos.636, 637 and 638 of 2023
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitions were dismissed only on the ground that no reason was assigned in filing the document along with the pleadings, however, the trial Court failed to notice that there is a foundation laid in the pleadings regarding the document.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners have to assign reason for not filing the document along with the plaint and filing at the fag end of the matter when it reached for arguments and that after dismissal of earlier attempt to get a commissioner appointed, this petition was filed and therefore the trial Court had rightly dismissed the petition.
6. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title delivery of possession of the property by ejecting the defendants and for grant of future profits from the date of the suit till date of delivery of possession to the plaintiffs in relation to the land situated in Survey No.106/2A to an extent of ac.0.65 cents. The plaintiffs pleaded that father of the plaintiffs was allotted certain land during an oral partition of the properties followed by mutual arrangement and adjustment and in such arrangement, the plaintiffs became owners of land to an extent of ac.1.33 cents in Survey No.106/2A of Nallagonda Village and that the father of the defendants No.1 and 2 and along with his brothers was already allotted certain other lands and they came to be in possession of their respective shares of properties. It is further pleaded that the father of the plaintiffs, due to his old age, partitioned his family properties between his two sons i.e., ac.0.67 cents in Survey No.106/2A was allotted to the 1®* plaintiff and ac.0.66 cents in the said survey number was allotted to the 2^^ plaintiff.
3BSB, J CRP.Nos.636, 637 and 638 of 2023
7. Whereas, the defendants, in their written statement, denied the same, however, pleaded that the father of the plaintiffs and the father of the defendants, along with their three more brothers, partitioned their family properties by way of partition list as per which the father of the defendants got ac.1.30 cents in Survey No. 106 of Nallagonda Village along with other properties and that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same for the last more than 60 years and it is the plaint schedule property and thus, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same.
8. Now, the petitioners No.1 and 2/plaintiffs No.1 and 2 seek to file the certified copy of compromise decree dated 23.09.2004 in O.S.No.99 of 1992 on the file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge's Court, Rajamahendravaram along with C.C. of compromise petition and plaint schedule attached thereto. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said document discloses that the land in survey No. 106 was allotted to the father of the plaintiffs/petitioners and father of the defendants was not allotted any part of the land in survey No. 106 but was allotted land in other survey numbers and therefore, the document proposed to be filed in evidence is very crucial and decides the main issues as to who is entitled to the plaint scheduled land in survey NO.106/2A. He further submitted that the reason has been stated in the affidavit regarding the filing of the document at this juncture that during the preparation of the case for arguments there was a discussion with the advocate and petitioners informed the same about the settlement of previous suit among the parties in O.S.No.99 of 1992 ending in compromise decree dated 23.09.2004 and so, it cannot be said that no reason was assigned for the delay. He further submitted that the Court can permit all material evidence required to adjudicate the matter on merits irrespective of the stage at which it is filed and for that purpose a liberal approach must be adopted by a Court.
4BSB, J CRP.Nos.636, 637 and 638 of 2023
9. He further relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Levaku Pedda Reddamma and others vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma and ANR\ wherein at paras 5 and 6 it is held as follows:
5. We find that the trial Court as well as the High Court have gravely erred in law in not permitting the defendants to produce documents, the relevance of which can be examined by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence to be led but to deprive a party to the suit not to file documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice.
6. It IS well settled that rules of procedure are hand-maid of justice and. therefore, even if there is some delay, the trial Court should have imposed some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself."
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that in the absence of proper reason, the petitions cannot be allowed for mere asking sake and placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bagai Construction vs. Gupta Building Material Stored wherein at para 15 it is held as follows;
15. After change of various provisions by way of amendment in the CPC, it is desirable that the recording of evidence should be continuous and followed by arguments and decision thereon within a reasonable time. This Court has repeatedly held that courts should constantly endeavour to follow such a time schedule. If the same is not followed, the purpose of amending several provisions in the Code would get defeated. In fact, applications for adjournments reopening and recalling ^ 2022 LawSuit (SC) 739 .^(2013) 14 see 5 BSB, J CRP.Nos.636. 637 and 638 of 2023 are interim measures, could be as far as possible avoided and only in compelling and acceptable reasons, those applications are to be considered. We are satisfied that the plaintiff has filed those two applications before the trial Court in order to overcome the lacunae in the plaint, pleadings and evidence. It is not the case of the plaintiff that it was not given adequate opportunity. In fact, the materials placed show that the plaintiff has filed both the applications after more than sufficient opportunity had been granted to it to prove its case. During the entire trial, those documents have remained in exclusive possession of the plaintiff, still plaintiff has not placed those bills on record. It further shows that final arguments were heard on number of times and judgment was reserved and only thereafter, in order to improve its case, the plaintiff came forward with such an application to avoid the final judgment against it. Such course is not permissible even with the aid of Section 151 CPC."
11. He further relied on the decision of this High Court in Uppu Hymavathi Mahila Sangam Visakhapatnam District and others vs. Sri Vidyaniketan Public School, Anakapalle and others^, wherein at para 4 held as follows:
"4. Under clause (1) of Rule 14 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relied upon 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 clause (3) thereof, a ^ 2018 (2) ALD 470 . 'v BSB, J CRP.Nos.636, 637 and 638 of 2023 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. From the aforementioned statutory provisions, it is evident that a duty is cast upon the plaintiff to enter every document on which he sues and to produce the same in Court along with the plaint. Thus, clause (3) of Rule 14 contains a statutory embargo against filing such document without leave of the Court. It is settled by a catena of judgments that the Court cannot grant leave to file documents at a belated stage for the mere asking. The plaintiff, who seeks to file documents at such stage, has to satisfy at least two conditions, namely; (1) the documents are necessary for deciding the real controversy in the suit and (2) sufficient cause for not producing the documents along with the plaint existed."
12. There is no doubt that the document sought to be filed is very much necessary for deciding the real controversy in the suit. Since, it is only during the course of discussion with the advocate before the trial Court, the necessity to file the document came up, there was no inaction on the part of the petitioners in not filing the said document along with the plaint. The record does not suggest that having known that this document is to be filed along with the plaint and having its possession when the suit was filed, the same was deliberately withheld or that the petitioners proposed to file the same to drag on the matter. As such, it cannot be assumed to lay ground to reject the relief. Order VII Rule 14 (3) of C.P.C. does not impose any restrictions on the discretion of a Court to grant leave to the plaintiff to file any document at a later stage though such a document is not filed along with the plaint. Therefore, in 7 BSB J CRP.Nos.636, 637 and 638 of 2023 each case, a Court has to see whether such a document is required for complete adjudication of the matter on merits, rather than rejecting such evidence being placed. In the present petitions, it is not even the case of the respondents that there is no such document in the existence nor do they dispute the correctness of the document. If at all a Court feels that the respondents are put to inconvenience for the delay in filing the documents, some terms can be imposed while granting leave.
13. As such, in the light of the forgoing discussion, the trial Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction to advance the cause of justice by allowing the petition by imposing some terms rather than rejecting the evidence on mere technicalities.
14. In the result the civil revision petitions are allowed. Orders dated 21.02.2023 passed in I.A.No.29 of 2023, I.A.No.30 of 2023 and I.A.No.31 of 2023 in O.S.No.196 of 2017 are set aside and the petitions therein are allowed on the condition that the petitioner shall pay the respondents Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) in each petition [in total Rs.3,000/-] within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of copy of this Order and file proof before the trial Court, failing which, all the three petitions stand dismissed without any further order.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand vacated.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/- G. HELA NAIDU
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
\
//TRUE COPY//
To, SECTION OFFICER
1.
The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram (with records if any)
2. One CC to SRI P RAJESH BABU Advocate [OPUC]
3. One CC to SRI SUREPALLI MADHAVA RAO Advocate [OPUC]
4. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
5. Three CD Copies PR Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:30/04/2024 COMMON ORDER CRP.No.636, 637 and 638 of 2023 ALLOWING THE CRPs 05