The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application to admit an agreement of sale. The court upheld the trial court's refusal, citing that the plea was raised at an inappropriate stage without reasons or reference in the written statement.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed with 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 JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5777 OF 2009
Between:
Jakkula Ramulu
..... PETITIOER
AND
Nookala Chandraiah
....RESPONDENT
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5777 OF 2009
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed against the order, dated 30.10.2009, in I.A.No.1108 of 2009 in O.S.No.36 of 2004, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, whereunder and whereby, the application filed, under Order VIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”) to receive the document i.e., original agreement of sale, was dismissed.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The document i.e., agreement of sale, filed by the petitioner/defendant was not received by the trial Court on the ground that no reason was assigned by the petitioner/defendant for receiving the said document. The stage of the suit is plaintiff’s evidence was completed and it is coming for defendant’s evidence and as a matter of fact, the petitioner/defendant was examined in chief. At that stage, the petition was filed by the petitioner/defendant to receive the document i.e., agreement of sale. There was no reference with regard to the contents of the document and the date of execution of document in the written statement. It is totally a new plea. There must be sufficient reason for receiving the document after filing of the written statement. It is not automatic under Order VIII Rule 1 (A) (3) C.P.C. The said provision cannot give any right for the parties, who were at fault, to receive the document at a later stage i.e., after filing of the written statement. Not even a single reason is stated by the petitioner/defendant in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, to receive the document and further more, neither the contents of the document nor the date of execution of document has been referred to in the written statement. Therefore, the trial Court exercised its discretion in dismissing the petition. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.
4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________ K.C. BHANU, J
March 19, 2010 MD
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application to admit an agreement of sale filed after the written statement without assigning a specific reason.
Whether the petitioner's failure to mention the document or its execution date in the written statement precludes its admission at a later stage.
Whether the requirements of Order VIII Rule 1(A)(3) CPC allow automatic admission of documents in the absence of sufficient justification.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Jakkula Ramulu
Nookala Chandraiah
K.C. BHANU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
