Dismissed

Lakshmi v. Vitta Kristappa

Andhra Pradesh HC27 Feb 2020CRP/3527/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed three civil revision petitions challenging the trial court's order rejecting applications to reopen a suit, recall a witness, and admit late-filed documents. The Court held that without sufficient reasons for failure to produce evidence earlier, the trial court was right to refuse relief at the stage of arguments.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petitions No.3527, 3541 & 3593 of 2019 were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Lakshmi Vs Vitta Kristappa — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3527, 3541 & 3593 of 2019

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

These three civil revision petitions are filed against separate orders, passed on 06.11.2011 in I.A.Nos.122, 121 & 123 of 2019 in O.S.No.4 of 2011, by the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni.

¶4

Heard both sides and perused the orders impugned.

¶5

The admitted fact is that after the trial concluded and when the matter was posted for arguments, the aforementioned three applications were made, viz.,I.A.No.122 of 2019 was filed under Sec.151 CPC to reopen the suit for further cross examination of PW 1; I.A.No.121 of 2019 was filed under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to recall PW 1 to confront with the certified copies of certain documents; and I.A.No.123 of 2019 was filed under Order 8 Rule 1 (1A) 3 CPC to receive (1) certified copy of sale deed No.3006/1984, (2) certified copy of sale deed No.3006/1984 and (3) certified copy of sale deed No.3752/2019. These three applications were opposed by the contesting respondent/plaintiff by filing counters. The court below, vide separate orders dated 06.11.2019, dismissed all these three applications. Questioning the same, these three revision petitions are filed.

¶6

Since these three revision petitions are between the same parties involving interrelated issues, they have been considered together and taken up for disposal by this common order.

¶7

Petitioners are Defendants Nos.19, 33 to 36 in O.S.No.4 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni. The suit O.S.No.4 of 2011 was filed by the contesting respondent/plaintiff for declaration of his title over the plaint schedule property nullifying the alienations covered by

¶8

JUD,J CRPs_3527_2019 & 2 ors

¶9

¶10

various documents bearing Nos.692/1995, 1225/1995, 1652/1990, 4425/2005, 3108/1995, 5583/2006, 2872/2008, 2510/1994, 1224/1995, 420/2006, 2826/2010, 3063/2005, 1382/1995, 3148/2006, 1227/1995, 472/2004, 3780/2001, 1464/2005 and 991/2005 respectively, which are said to be executed by the 2^nd respondent/1^st defendant-M/s.Vijay Estate Traders, Adoni, represented by its Partner M.Veeranjinayulu in favour of respondents Nos.2 to 20. It appears that during pendency of the suit, defendants Nos.3 and 7 died and their legal representatives were brought on record. However, as found from the cause title of the revision petitions, respondents Nos.2 to 32 were arrayed as “not necessary parties”.

¶11

The only contesting respondent in these revision petitions is the plaintiff in O.S.No.4 of 2011. He has been arrayed as 32^nd respondent in the impugned interlocutory applications and as 1^st respondent in the present revision petitions.

¶12

It is noticed from the orders impugned that while the suit filed by the contesting respondent/plaintiff reached the stage of hearing the arguments, aforementioned three applications were filed by the revision petitioners.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the need and necessity to recall PW 1 is to adduce further evidence and to mark certain documents for deciding the contentious issue involved in the suit and the court below ought to have seen that power is inherited in it under Section 151 CPC to receive documents at any stage for better adjudication of the case. He further submits that the court below has not considered the right of parties to file applications seeking to mark documents at any point of time before passing of final judgment, and that all the documents which the revision petitioners intend to bring on record by confronting PW 1 are the

¶14

JUD,J CRPs_3527_2019 & 2 ors

¶15

¶16

public documents, and that the court below ought to have granted leave, particularly, in view of the provisions of law laid down under Rule 1A(3) of Order 8 CPC. The learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in K.K.Velusamy v. Palanisamy¹ in support of his contention that the documents now sought to be produced are public documents and they can be taken on record.

¶17

While submitting reply to the aforementioned submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel of the contesting respondent/plaintiff states that after recording evidence of both sides while the case was at the stage of hearing the arguments, the revision petitioners filed three applications seeking leave of the court for filing certain documents, to recall PW 1 and for further cross examination of PW 1 by confronting with those documents, without mentioning any cogent reasons. He further submits that the affidavits filed in support of the applications are silent about relevancy of the documents and as to how those documents are necessary for better adjudication of the case. He further submits that due to nonproduction of so-called documents at the earliest point of time due to their failure to assign sufficient reasons for filing those documents at belated stage, and as it has not been explained by them as to how those documents will assist the court in rendering of justice, the court below has rightly dismissed the said applications. He further states that the documents now sought to be produced are not in any way connected with the schedule property, and there is no patent irregularity in the orders impugned.

¶18

The learned counsel states that power under Section 151 CPC is not intended to be used routinely merely for the asking, and unless strong reasons are pleaded and the court is satisfied with such reasons, it is not

¶19

1 (2011) 11 SCC 275

¶20

JUD,J CRPs_3527_2019 & 2 ors

¶21

¶22

desirable to reopen the evidence and in support of his contentions, he relies upon judgments of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench) in Angoori Devi v. Rajendra Sharma² and judgment of erstwhile High Court of AP in Batchu Jagadish Kumar v. Mogili Venkaaswamy (died)³ .

¶23

The point that arises for consideration in these revision petitions is whether the court below committed any error in dismissing the applications filed by the revision petitioners?

¶24

Though it is imperative on the part of the petitioners to justify by disclosing the reasons as to why the documents now sought to be produced could not be filed along with the written statement and as to how those documents are relevant for just adjudication of the case, no reasons whatsoever are mentioned in the affidavits annexed to the petitions filed in this regard. In the entire written statement filed by defendant No.36 (revision petitioner No.4 herein) no reference whatsoever is made about the documents which are now sought to be produced on record.

¶25

Rules 1-A and 1-A(3) of Order VIII CPC were substituted by Act 46 of 1999 with effect from 01.07.2002 with object of curbing the phenomenal delays in the procedural aspects leading to procrastination of the proceedings before the civil court. The Parliament has thought it fit to stipulate time limit for the parties to file their defence and produce documents along with the defence so that the cases can be disposed of without any delay. This being the objective of the provisions amended, the court before which the defendant intends to produce the documents after filing of the written statement need to assign the reasons for non-production of documents along with the written statement. Unless the reasons assigned by the defendant disclosing sufficient cause for his failure to produce the

¶26

2 WP.1038/2012, dt.10.04.2012 (MANU/MP/0448/2012)

¶27

3 2019 (5) ALT 284

¶28

JUD,J CRPs_3527_2019 & 2 ors

¶29

¶30

documents within the time stipulated in Rule-1A of Order VIII CPC, the court shall not permit him to file the documents at a later stage.

¶31

In the instant case, no reason whatsoever is assigned by the revision petitions for non-production of the documents which are sought to be produced and that they have not even referred those documents in their written statement. Due to non-disclosure of sufficient cause for their failure to produce the intended documents, the production of documents at a later stage, that too, when the case reached the stage of arguments, cannot be permitted.

¶32

There is no dispute about the law laid down by the Apex Court in K.K.Velusamy v. Palanisamy (1 supra) that where the application is found to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that non-production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the court may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh evidence. But in the instant case, it is submitted by the contesting respondent/plaintiff that he is nothing to do with the documents on which the revision petitioners want to rely and neither the executants nor the vendors or vendees of those documents are parties to the suit. The petitioners have not stated as to how the proposed documents are connected to the issue involved in the suit.

¶33

As held by the erstwhile High Court of AP in Batchu Jagadish

¶34

Kumar v. Mogili Venkaaswamy (died) (3 supra) the court needs to be circumspect in examining whether proper reasons are assigned by the defendant for not producing the documents along with the written statement. Unless the reasons assigned by the defendant disclose sufficient cause for his failure to produce the documents within the time stipulated in Rule 1-A of

¶35

JUD,J CRPs_3527_2019 & 2 ors

¶36

¶37

Order VIII CPC, the court shall not permit the defendant to file such documents later, and liberal approach in this regard would frustrate the purpose for which the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are amended. The High Court further held that “grant of leave by the court is not for the mere asking nor is the court a mere post-office to receive documents even in the absence of any reasons furnished for failure to file the documents along with the written statement”.

¶38

The court below having observed that there is no reference about the proposed documents either in the pleadings or in the evidence, and the ground on which the revision petitioners are prevented from filing those documents at the earliest point of time is not explained, rightly dismissed the applications filed by them. The court below has not committed any error, in my view, for rejecting the request made by the revision petitions to grant leave for receiving the proposed documents, for recall of PW 1 to confront him with those documents and to reopen the case for the said purpose etc., etc.

¶39

I find no merit in these civil revision petitions and they are liable to be dismissed. These three civil revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶40

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.

¶41

__________________ J.UMA DEVI,J

¶42

Date: 27.02.2020 Dsr

Lakshmi v. Vitta Kristappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi v. Vitta Kristappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Matta Nagarjuna Nanda at Matta Nagarjuna Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ramavath Dharmi Bai, Vs Vadithe Hanumanthu Naik

Gariga Harinadh Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

K Lakshmi Vs Vitta Kristappa

Pedada Rama Mohana Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.S.Nazeer Basha Vs S F Banu