In a Civil Revision Petition, the High Court dismissed the challenge against the Trial Court's order allowing an application under Order XVI Rule 3 C.P.C. to summon a witness for document production in a partition suit.
Civil Revision Petition 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 :: AMARAVATI
TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2973 OF 2023
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Aggrieved by the order dated 01-11-2023 in L.A. 245/2023 In O.S. 104/2006, on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Razolu East Godavari District.
Between:
...PETITIONERN0.1/RESPONDENTN0.1
years, Pulletikurru, Ambajipeta Mandal, Amalapuram JCJ Court limits.
...RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 AND RESPONDENTS NO. 7 TO 12
(Respondent No. 6 to 8 are added as per orders in I.A.No. 883 of 2010 dated 20/01/2012)
06/03^20?5)"* ^ 2014 dated
(Respondent No.10 to 12 are added as per Orders in I.A.No. 356 of 2021 dated 04/04/2022)
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
th» affiH?-I n Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstancesstatedin of aH^rther ? P®""®"' "'® ^'9*' Pleased to Stay on-.. Proceedings in impugned order file order dated 01.11.2023in I A No Rttnie^F m O.S.No.104/2006, on the file of the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge Razole, East Godavari District) ^iuuyc.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. M S R SASHI BHUSHAN
Counsel for the Respondents:
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2973 OF 2023
JUDGMENT: -
Heard Sri M. S. R. Sashi Bhushan, learned counsel forthe petitioners appearing through virtual mode and perused the material on record.
- The petitioners are defendant Nos.l and 6 respectively in O.S.No.l04 of 2006 pending in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Razole filed by the plaintiff/present respondent No. 1.
- The suit is filed for partition of plaint scheduled properties Item Nos.l to 9 into six equal shares, theplaintiff claiming 1/6* share and for deliveiy of plaintiffssharewith respect to the scheduled property. In Item No. 10, 1/12*share is claimed.
- The defendant/petitioners, in the written statement attested their case based on the Registered Will dated 03.03.2004 by Sri Y. Srirama Murthy.
- In the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.245 of 2023 under Order XVI Rule 1, 5 and 6 read with Section 151C.P.C requesting the Court to issue summons to the ChiefExecutive Officer, PACCS, Edarada, Mamidikuduru Mandal, to produce
\
2
the loan account ledger book and the registered mortgagebonds dated 02.03.1991, 07.04.1993 and 29.03.1993 executed by Yerubandi Sriramamurthy, father of the plaintiff and the defendant No.l, the grandfather of the defendant No.6 in favour of PACCS and to give evidence.
- The application after contest has been allowed by the impugned order dated 01.11.2023.
- Challenging the said order, the present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
- Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiff/respondent No.l had the knowledge of the registered will in favour of the petitioners. It is so mentioned in the plaint itself. Consequently the application was filed at the belated stage for which there was no sufficient reason assigned,and as such the application should not have been allowed in view of Order XVI Rule 1(3) Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C).
3
[
evidence or to produce documents and obtain summonses to such persons for their attendance in Court. (2) A party desirous of obtaining any summons for the attendance of any person shall file in Court an application stating therein the purpose for which the witness is proposed to be summoned. (3) The Court may, for reasons to be recorded, permit a party to call, whether by summoning through Court or otherwise, any witness, other than those whose names appear in the list referred to in sub-rule (1), if such party shows sufficient cause for the omission to mention the name of such witness in the said list. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), summonses referred to in this rule may be obtained by the parties on an application to the Court or to such officer as may be appointed by the [Court in this behalf within five days of presenting the list of witnesses under sub-rule (1)]. [ lA. Production of witnesses without summons Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 any party to the suit may, without appl3dng for summons under Rule 1, bring any witness to give evidence or to produce documents.]”
- The plaintiff filed the application l.A.No.245 of 2023 inter alia to dispute the contents of the will, by production of the loan amount, ledger book etc., by summoning the Chief Executive Officer to produce those documents. In the will, copy of which has been filed before this Court along withthe memo. dated 11.12.2023 in the English translated copy, it is mentioned “I have no debts to be paid to others and 1 have no outstandings to be recovered from others”.
- The Trial Court on consideration of the marked documents on record, which showed that there was some loan amount on Y. Srirama Murthy, which was written off by the
4
Government with some amount still outstanding, as also being of the view that an opportunity should be given to the plaintiff to rebut the case of the petitioners allowed the application. The Trial Court observed that by allowing the application no prejudice would be caused to the present petitioners as they would also have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. The learned Trial Court further recorded that, it would be helpful to decide the lis between the parties and the truth will come out.
- Learned Trial Court has recorded the reasons for allowing the application. There may be delay in filing the application, but on mere ground of delay the applicationunder Order XVI Rule 3 C.P.C cannot be rejected as rules of procedure are handmade of justice.
- Under Order XVI Rule 1 (3) C.P.C the power of the trial Court to direct production of witness, whose name does not appear in the list referred to in sub rule (1) is to do complete justice. If the Court finds that it would be helpful to decide the lis between the parties and the truth will come out, the Trial Court would be within its power and jurisdiction to allow such application and summon any witness.
- In this case, the Trial Court has recorded sufficient and justifiable reasons. I also find from perusal of the copy of
5
I
/ 1
the will that it recites that “I have no debts to be paid to others... whereas as per the order impugned there were documents on record to show that the loan was obtained by the testator and some amount also remained outstanding to be paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stagesubmits that there was no outstanding amount as per Exs.Rl 85 R2. The copies of Ex.R.l and Ex.R.2 have not been filed in this C.R.P to controvert what is stated in the impugned order.
- In any view of the matter, once the Trial Court has recorded that the opportunity should be given to the plaintiff to rebut the case of the defendant as also that the concerned witness would be helpful to the Court to decide the lis between the parties and to bring out the truth, I am not inclined to entertain this petition to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Court in advancement of justice for the reasons recorded, in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
- The Civil Revision Petition has no merit and is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
6
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if anypending,
shall also stand closed.
SDI- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
To,
SECTION OFFICER
\ \
N
N
HIGH COURT
DATED:12/12/2023
ORDER
CRP.No.2973 of 2023
5 Copfe
Z&Ulzl/-
D61-
or
o
O
0 2 APR 202^ %mi*
^ Current Saclion
CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISMISSED
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court erred in allowing an application for summoning a witness to produce documents under Order XVI Rule 3 C.P.C. despite alleged delay by the applicant.
Whether the power of a trial court under Order XVI Rule 3 C.P.C. must be exercised to advance justice and truth when recording sufficient reasons.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Yerubandi Lakshmayya
Sriphaniram
Yerubandi Jagadeesh Prabhakar
Ravi Nath Tilhari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
