Dismissed

Smt. a. Papulamma v. Kolla Lakshmi Devamma

Telangana HC3 Dec 2011CRP/4111/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a civil revision dismissing a petitioner's appeal against a dismissal of an application to adduce additional evidence (certified copies of judgments). The High Court held that the petitioner failed to explain why documents available earlier were not produced, despite being remanded previously to explain reasons.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

Smt. a. Papulamma Vs Kolla Lakshmi Devamma — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4111 OF 2011

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This revision is filed against the order dated 20.8.2011 passed in IA No.146 of 2008 in A.S.No.40 of 2005 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Madanapalle, Chittoor District.

¶4

The petitioner-defendant filed the above application before the lower appellate Court seeking permission to adduce additional evidence by receiving the certified copies of the judgments and decrees in O.S.No.292 of 1989, dated 19.2.1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Madanapalle; in A.S.No.48 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, dated 20.6.2005 and in A.S.No.51 of 1996 preferred against the judgment in O.S.No.348 of 1990.

¶5

It is the case of the petitioner-defendant that prior to the present suit, the respondents filed O.S.No.292 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle for partition of 3/4^th share in agricultural property owned by Kola Ramanna by raising several contentions therein. But, she could not controvert the same in her written statement in view of the pendency of appeal in A.S.48 of 2000, which was filed against the decree and judgment in O.S.No:292 of 1989 and that the documents, sought to be received, are required for consideration in the appeal.

¶6

The Court below dismissed the said application. Hence, the petitioner filed the present revision.

¶7

Heard both the Counsel and perused the material available on record.

¶8

It is the case of the petitioner that previously, the respondents filed O.S.No.292 of 1989 for partition of 3/4^th share in agricultural property owned by Kola Ramanna. But in view of the pendency of the appeal in A.S.No:48 of 2000 against the said judgment in the said

¶9

suit, she was unable to controvert the same in her written statement. Subsequently, the said appeal was disposed of. But, she is unable to secure a certified copy of the judgment therein in spite of filing copy application, which had not seen the light of the day.

¶10

Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in State of Rajasthan Vs. T.N. Sahani and others^[1] , and contended that the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC should be decided along with the appeal and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to file the documents in the appeal.

¶11

The respondents-plaintiffs denied the case of the petitionerdefendant on the ground that the documents that are sought to be filed, were already available as on the date of filing her written statement. But, she has not produced the same for the reasons best known to her. It is also stated that on the earlier occasion, the Court below allowed similar application and the matter was carried to this Court vide CRP No.4350 of 2009 and the same was remanded back to the Court below for fresh consideration with permission to the parties to file fresh affidavits if any, furnishing all the facts and particulars of the case.

¶12

In reply, the learned Counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs submitted that the affidavit does not disclose the reasons for not filing the additional evidence during the pendency of the suit or subsequently at the threshold of the appeal and the petitioner has also not mentioned the nature of the documents and the circumstances warranting production of such documents and their relevancy for adjudication of the appeal.

¶13

It is no doubt that the Court has discretion to entertain any application for additional evidence subject to condition that the petitioner must prove the reasons to the effect that in spite of due diligence, she could not get the material to place before the Court at

¶14

the relevant point of time.

¶15

Be that as it may, a perusal of the material on record goes to show that the petitioner filed similar I.A., and the same was allowed and this Court in revision set aside the said order and granted liberty to the petitioner to explain the reasons and also file a fresh affidavit. As is evident from the order under revision, the petitioner did not explain any reasons for not producing the documents in question at the earliest point of time, except mentioning that in II term 2005 in Dis.No.44, the file was returned to the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Madanapalle for rectification and after rectification it was sent to the District Court on 9.8.2007 and in the said process, copy application was not at all traced. Apart from that, the petitioner even did not file any material to show that the documents in question are necessary for adjudication of the issue.

¶16

In the above circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the order of the lower appellate Court does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶17

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶18

__________________ Justice N.V. Ramana

¶19

Dated:3.12.2011 Nn.

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶21

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 4111 OF 2011

¶22

3.12.2011

¶23

¶24

1. (2001) 10 SCC 619

Smt. a. Papulamma v. Kolla Lakshmi Devamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. a. Papulamma v. Kolla Lakshmi Devamma

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

S. Sivaprasad Vs Tirumala Gopal Prasad

T. Viljaya Kumari Vs Sreenivasa Chits and Financers (Regd)

M. Satyavanthudu Vs Sri B. Govindaiah , Govinda Reddy

Azgar Ali, Vs S. Gurappa Naidu

B.Venkata Ramana Vs G.Narayana

B. Gangadhar Vs Choppa Lakshmikar Reddy