Single judge disposed of a review petition challenging an order admitting documents filed during pendency of a Criminal Revision Petition. The Court held no error was apparent on the face of the record and the petition failed to meet Order 47 Rule 1 CPC grounds.
Application for review is dismissed.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
Rev. C.R.P.M.P. No. 300 of 2012 in C.R.P. No. 3120 of 2011
O r d e r:
This review petition is filed to review the order dated 09.12.2011 made by this Court in C.R.P. No. 3120 of 2011.
The review petitioners-defendants 3 and 4 filed I.A. No. 343 of 2011 in O.S. No. 28 of 2006 under Order VIII, Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying the Court below, to grant leave to receive the documents mentioned therein. The Court below by order dated 20.06.2011 allowed the said I.A. Questioning the said order, plaintiff No.1 filed the C.R.P., and this Court, by order dated 09.12.2011, which the petitioners-defendants seek review, allowed the C.R.P.
Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners-
defendants.
The law is well settled that after amendment made to C.P.C., all the documents, which the defendant wants to file, has to file them along with the written statement, and in case, he fails to file them along with the written statement, and wants to file them at a later date, then he has to seek leave of the Court, by explaining the reasons for not filing such documents along with the written statement, and unless he explains the reasons for not filing, leave to file such documents cannot be granted.
The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as there was no order passed by this Court staying the order assailed in the C.R.P., the Court below during the pendency of the C.R.P. received all the documents, and therefore, the cause in the C.R.P. has become
infructuous, and the order in the I.A. attained finality, and that had he brought this fact to the notice of the Court then the Court instead of allowing the C.R.P. by setting the order passed by the Court below in the I.A., would have dismissed the C.R.P. has having become infructuous. Therefore, the order in the C.R.P. requires to be reviewed.
The petitioners-defendants cannot dispute the fact that any documents received and marked by the Court pending adjudication of the C.R.P. would be subject to the outcome of the C.R.P. Therefore, the contention that the C.R.P. has become infructuous does not arise. The question of reviewing an order would arise only in case where there is error apparent on the face of the record, which could be pointed out by culling out from the entire facts, as mentioned in the pleadings and the materials that have been filed along with the main petition or the review petition. But having perused the pleadings and the review petition, this Court finds no error apparent on the face of the order.
The other ground that has been raised by the petitionersdefendants is that as the documents were sought to be filed for collateral purpose, the question of delay in filing does not arise. This ground taken by the petitioners-defendants runs counter to the purpose for which amendment has been made to C.P.C. The amendment to C.P.C. was made to avoid delay, so as to ensure speedy justice to litigant public. If the ground taken by the petitioners-defendants is accepted, then it will go against the spirit of the amendment made to C.P.C., particularly the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1(3A) CPC. The Court having marked the documents, would differentiate between collateral purpose and other purposes, and once the documents are marked, they would be on record, to determine the subject matter of
dispute between the parties.
The next ground urged by the petitioners-defendants is that they have specifically pleaded in the written statement about the execution of sale, but the respondent-plaintiff has not filed any rejoinder thereto denying its execution. C.P.C. does not provide for filing of rejoinders by plaintiffs to the written statement of the defendants, save in exceptional circumstances. May be the plaintiff has not denied the execution of the agreement, but what prevented the petitionersdefendants from filing the documents along with the written statement, is not explained.
To avoid filing of documents by the parties after commencement of trial, the Legislature made amendment to C.P.C. requiring the parties to file the documents relied upon by them along with the plaint and written statement, and if they fail to do produce, and want to produce them at a later stage, they have to explain the reasons for not filing them along with the plaint or written statement. In fact, that is the purport of the judgment in Ravi Satish v. Edala Durga Prasad[1] , on which the respondent-plaintiff, placed reliance, and the contention of the petitioners-defendants that the said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case cannot be accepted.
The last ground urged by the counsel for the petitionersdefendants that submissions could not be made on their behalf and that the order of this Court mentioned that the arguments of the counsel for the respondents were also heard, appears to be incorrect. It is only after hearing both the counsel, the judgment was reserved and pronounced.
For the foregoing reasons, I find no reason merit in the review petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed, particularly it does not make out any of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 CP.C.
Hence, application is dismissed.
________________ N.V. RAMANA, J.
Dated: 9th March, 2012 KSR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition is maintainable where there is no error apparent on the face of the record regarding the admission of documents pending a criminal revision.
Whether the amendment to Order VIII Rule 1(3A) CPC permitting late filing of documents is violated where documents were filed during pendency of a ruling challenge.
Whether a review petition satisfies the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC in the absence of specific error.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ravi Satish v. Edala Durga PrasadReferred¶15
2009 (3) ALT 236
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Review Petitioners-Defendants 3 and 4
N.V. Ramana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
