Allowed

Pusa Satyakishore v. Chintala Raghavulu

Telangana HC11 Dec 2014CRP/2013/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of three revision petitions challenging a lower court rejection of document receipt applications. The High Court held that admissibility is a separate issue from receiving documents and ordered the lower court to allow the petitions and reopen evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed; lower court to receive documents, recall witness, and reopen evidence to test admissibility.

Pusa Satyakishore Vs Chintala Raghavulu — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2013, 2145 & 2190 of 2014 COMMON ORDER :

¶2

These three revision petitions arise out of the common order of learned Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet dated 27.03.2014, one is to reopen the evidence, other is to receive the document and the other is to recall P.W-1 to exhibit the document sought to be received. By said common order and after hearing both sides, ended in dismissal, particularly from the observations from para No.9 of the impugned common order of the lower Court, these Petitions were filed. The observations in the impugned order of the learned Senior Civil Judge reads as follows:

¶3

“The documents sought to be received are only photo copies. They are filed in the Court on 06.03.2014 on which date D.W1 was cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff. During crossexamination itself they were sought to be confronted to D.W-1 by learned counsel for plaintiff but this Court observed that the said documents cannot be confronted to the witness as they are only photo copies and they do not contain the certificate of the persons executing them on the signature of competent police authority to show that they were given to the said police. The said documents are said to have been given to Toopran police by plaintiff and one document is copy of report said to have been given by plaintiff to police and another one is copy of document said to have been given by said Sangham to police to the effect that the said Sangham decided not to make fishing in the tank. Therefore, already this Court observed that they are only photo copies and they are not admissible. The said documents do not contain signatures of competent authority i.e., police officials to show that they were given in the police station. Those documents only contain the seal of the police station concerned and nobody signed it on the same to show that they were received in the said police station. Even if they are presumed for a moment without admitting to have been given in police station by the plaintiff it cannot be said that they are admissible as they do not contain any certificate of official concerned to that effect. Even the plaintiff did not sign on the report said to have been given to police by him to the effect that it is copy of the

¶4

report given by him. On another document there is no any certificate to show that it was copy of the original. Admissibility of the documents cannot be decided in petition to receive the documents but Court can look into the aspect whether the plaintiff gave proper explanation for not filing said documents at the earlier stage. The plaintiff did not refer to in evidence about the said documents and he also did not refer to in the plaint also about the same. Under Order VII Rule 14(1) C.P.C the plaintiff has to enter the document on which he wants to rely in a list and he should produce it in Court at the time of presentation of plaint. If the said documents were not in possession or power he should mention under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 of Order VII, C.P.C in the plaint about the fact as to in whose possession or power said documents are and if they were not traced out at that time he should mention in the plaint about the said fact. Admittedly, the said documents were pertaining to period much prior to filing of suit. But as argued on behalf of the defendant there was no prior reference about the same either in the plaint or in the list of documents and in the chief examination affidavit of P.W-1. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court the plaintiff did not explain properly the delay in filing documents sought to be received till the stage of arguments in the main suit”.

¶5

2) In fact, the receiving of the document is one thing and admissibility, relevancy and probative value to decide as part of appreciation of evidence is the other and is an entirely different perspective. The receiving of document whether covered by any explanation or not is the main criterion, that too when it no way shows from very look of the document outcome of a forged or fabricated to serve the defendants. Otherwise any opposing of the document for marking, the Court can, in the course of evidence, be marked subject to objection unless it touches requirement of stamp duty or requirement of registration to decide instantaneously all other objections shall be decided along with arguments of the main matter ultimately by marking subject to objection. The law is fairly settled atleast from the expression of the Apex Court in Bipin Santilal Panchal V. State of Gujara t^[1] . The trial Court did not advert this legal aspect in rejecting the application saying the document is

¶6

not when admissible, for the purpose of reopen or recall of P.W-1 and when to exhibit the same, the petitions cannot be allowed.

¶7

3) In fact, when it is the alleged police complaint and it is an endorsement of the police in acknowledgement of receiving of the complaint and that is sought to be marked to support the claim of the plaintiff of the so called understanding between the parties arrived for recovery of the amount which is covered by the suit lis. The rejection to receive the document not even on the ground of no proper explanation but by premature decision on its admissibility on the part of the lower Court is non-exercise of the jurisdiction vested or improper exercise that prejudices the right of the petitioner herein as contended in the revision. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶8

4) Accordingly and in the result, all the three petitions are allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- by the Petitioner to INSED Mentally Challenged Institution at Sangareddy. The petitioner shall pay the said costs, to the said voluntary organization and file proof before the lower Court, within 15 days from today to allow the applications, pursuant to it and receive the documents and recall P.W-1 by reopening the evidence to exhibit and any objection of its admissibility, relevancy and probative value, the Court can mark and subject to objection to decide as laid down in Bipin Santilal Panchal supra. There is no order as to costs.

¶9

5) Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶10

_________________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RĀO, J

¶11

Date:11-12-2014 ksh

¶12

[1] AIR 2001 SC 1158

Pusa Satyakishore v. Chintala Raghavulu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pusa Satyakishore v. Chintala Raghavulu

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

Boddu Peda Yellamandaiah Vs Jampani Suresh Kumar (Jampani Motors)

Sri Pullaiah, S/o Sri Chandraiah Vs The State of Telangana

Manam Venkata Prasada Reddy Vs Annapureddy Venkata Narayana Reddy

Pusa Satyakishore Vs Chintala Raghavulu

G.Sreeramachandrudu, Vs P. Srinivas

Lakkireddygari Ram Reddy Vs P Narayan Reddy