The High Court dismissed civil revision petitions challenging the trial court's refusal to admit 46 documents late in the litigation proceedings, holding the petitioner failed to establish sufficient cause for non-production as required by Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC.
Civil Revision Petitions dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 2118 AND 2119 OF 2023
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2118 OF 2023
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 10.08.2023 in I.A.No.192 of 2023 in O.S.No.79 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Judge at Madanapalle,ChittoorDistrict.
Between:
K.Janardhana Reddy, S/o. Venkataramana Reddy, Aged 44 years, R/o. NBT Road, Mulakalachervu Village and Mandal, Chittoor, (Annamaiah) District
...Petitioner/Petitioners/Defendant-2
AND
...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants
Counsel for the Petitioner; Sri N. Pramod, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents: Smt. S. Ayesha Azma, Advocate
niVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2119 OF 2023
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of Indiaaggrievedbytheorder H.ted 1?08 2023 in I A No. 193 of 2023 in O.S.No.79of2006onthef.teofthe Court of the Principal Senior Judge at Madanapalle,Chittoor(Annamaiah)Distric .
Between;
, R/o. NBT K lanardhana Reddy S/o. Venkataramana Reddy, Aged ^4years Road, MulIkLcher^ Village and Mandal, Chittoor, (Annama.ah) District
...Petitioner/Petitioners/Defendant-2
AND
ts/Respondents/Defendants ...Responden
IA 1 QF ^0^
?.^orarMl~ire°C»oor iA^amaiah, Drstnct.
: Sri N , Pramod, Advocate Counsel for the Petitioner : Smt S. Ayesha Azma, Advocate Counsei for the Respondents
; COMMON ORDER The Court made the foliowing
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO pf^vTSTON PETITION Nos.2118_&_2119_M20^ CIVIL
COMMON ORDER;
Heard Sri N. Pramod, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Ayesha Azma. learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The re spondents/plaintiffs had filed O.S.No.79 Civil Judge, of 2006 before the Principal Senior , said to be Madanapalle for partition of certain properties family of the plaintiffs, and the defendants belonging to the herein was arrayed as defendant therein. The petitioner that he had purchased certain No.2, on the ground properties which were the subject matter of the partition suit.
2
all these allegations and contending that the property purchased by the petitioner from the other defendantswas within the limits available to such defendants. At the stage of evidence, it appears that the plaintiffs, in the suit, had reserved the right to adduce evidence in rebuttal ofthe evidence produced by the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner adduced evidence and marked some documents. Thereafter, the plaintiffs examined the 2^^^ plaintiffasP.W.3 and marked Exs.A. 12 to A. 18 through the said witness.In the course of the cross examination, the petitionerissaidto have confronted P.W.3 with documents showing that P.W.3 and his family members had sold away various properties which would go to show that the properties claimed bythe plaintiffs in the suit are not available and in anyeventthe suit would fail on that ground. At that stage, the plaintiffs had filed l.A.No.247 of 2020 for deletion of item Nos.8and 10 of the suit schedule properties and the same was allowed on 11.03.2020. It is the case of the petitionerthat these items were removed as the petitioner had soughtto confront the witness of the plaintiffs with documents showing that these items of property had been soldbythe plaintiffs themselves. In that view of the matter, the
petitioner was permitted to file an additional written statement in which the petitioner raised the contentionthat there cannot he a suit for partial partition and as the plaintiffs themselves had removed two items from the plaint schedule property, the suit would have to fail. On this basis, an additional issue was also framed, on 27.11.2022, on the question of maintainability of a suit for partial partition.
- The petitioner then moved LA.No. 192 of 2023 and l.A.No.193 of 2023 for permission to produce about46 documents and for recall of the witness to mark the documents. These applications were filed in April, 2023. The contention of the petitioner, in these applications,was that P.W.3, in his cross examination, refused to allowthe documents produced by the petitioner to be marked inthe trial by refusing to acknowledge any of the documentsand as such, the petitioner should be given an opportunity to mark these documents by producing the certified copiesof the registered deeds and encumbrance certificates obtained from the registration authorities. The delay in filingthe documents was explained by stating that the said delaywas not ithentional and that the petitioner had to seektheleave
4
of the Court to produce these documents as P.W.3 hadnot cooperated with the petitioner and had deliberatelytaken an obstructionist position to stop the documents from being marked.
- The trial Court dismissed both the applications by an order dated 10.08.2023. Aggrieved by the saidorders of dismissal, the petitioner had approached this Court, by way of the present Civil Revision Petitions which are being disposed of by way of this common order.
5
plaintiffs would get away that their obstructionist position
in the course of the trial.
- Smt. Ayesha Azma, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has now sought to introduce about 46 documents in a case which commenced in the year 2006 and that no explanation of any nature was given as to why these documents werenot produced earlier and were now sought to be produced in the trial. She submits that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1-A of C.P.C require the petitioner to set outthecause as to why the documents could not be produced earlierand as to why such documents should be permitted to be introduced in the suit at a stage after the trial had commenced. She would further submit that there was no pleading in the written statement relating to the alleged sales by the plaintiffs and their family members whichare now sought to be proved and the said documents cannotbe introduced on the principle that no evidence can be adduced in the absence of pleadings to that effect.
6
I
Rule 1-A: Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him.
- These provisions stipulate that a defendant who seeks to , rely upon any document shall enter the details of
t’
7
such documents m a list and produce the said list along with the written statement filed by him. The defendant the document and a copy thereof would also have to present along with the written statement. In the event of any failure failure to produce the to list out such documents, or any said documents, the defendant is given a further opportunity under Rule 1-A (3) of C.P.C which stipulates still be received in evidence with that such documents can the leave of the Court.
has been interpreted by the 10. This provision Courts. A learned single judge of this Court in CivilRevision Petition Nos.1034 and 1116 of 2023 dated 14.06.2023, after a review of the law, had held that unless cogent and clear reasons are given and made out for permitting production of would have to be rejected. documents, the said application The judgment of a, learned single judge of this Court in lakshmi and others vs. Vitta Kristappa and othersh which has been extracted by the learned single judge in the judgment mentioned above bears repetition.
substituted Rule 1-A and 1-A(3) of Order Vlll CPC were with effect from 01.07.2022 with by Act 46 of 1999 the phenomenal delays in the object of curbing
1 2020 (2) ALT364 (S.B)
8
procedural aspects leading to procrastination of the proceedings before the civil court. The parliament has thought it fit to stipulate time limit for the partiestofile 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 nonproduction of documents along with the written statement. Unless the reasons assigned by the defendant disclosing sufficient cause for his failure to produce the W.P.No.l038 of 2012, dt. 10.04.2012, the 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.
- Sri N. Pramod, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Honhle Supreme Court in the case of Sambhaji & Ors vs. Gangabai & Ors.,2 dated 20.11.2008 in Civil Appeal No.6731 of 2008, to contend that Order VllI Rule-1 and Rule 1-A of C.P.C are at best handmade of justice and delay in seeking leave for production of documents should not hamper or affect the rights of the parties to have substantive justice.
^ (2008) 1/see 117
9
- Further, there is no explanation as to why these documents had not been produced by the petitioner whilehe was being examined. The only explanation given, in the application, is that P.W.3 was sought to be confrontedwiththe documents and since he was refusing to acknowledge the documents, the petitioner should be given leave to produce the documents before the Court. Rule 1-A of Order VIII, as interpreted by the courts above, would not permit the production of documents in the absence of cogent and clear reasons given for making out a case for granting suchleave.
10
- This Court is bound by the principles set out by the HonT)le Supreme Court in the case cited by SriN.Pramod. However, the said judgment also held that Courts wouldhave to exercise their discretion, depending upon the factsofthe each case.
- In the circumstances, the necessary conditions for grant of leave under Rule 1-A of C.P.C have not been made out by the petitioner and these Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
SDI- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR sectionSw ICER
//TRUE COPY//
To,
D. Three CD Copies.
ssb r Y1^ ft,
HIGH COURT
DATED:24/11/2023
COMMON ORDER
CRP.Nos.2118 AND 2119 of 2023
pilUL
DISMISSING THE CRPs WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether leave to produce documents under Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC should be granted when no explanation is given for non-production during writing statement stage
Whether documents relied upon after the stage of arguments can be produced in absence of sufficient cause disclosed earlier
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K. Janardhana Reddy
Pujari Sahadeva and others
Justice R Raghunandan Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
