Allowed

J. Bikshapathi v. Jarupula Rathan Kumar

Telangana HC5 Sept 2014CRP/2660/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the civil revision petition, permitting production of additional evidence filed belatedly under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 CPC, despite the application being dismissed below for pass of time and non-binding nature of the document on a respondent.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition is allowed; the petitioners are permitted to produce the evidence subject to proof, relevancy, and cross-examination.

J. Bikshapathi Vs Jarupula Rathan Kumar — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2660 of 2014

¶2

Dated 0 5 th September, 2014

¶3

Between:

¶4

J.Bikshapathi and others

¶5

…Petitioners And

¶6

Jarupula Rathan Kumar and another

¶7

…Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the petitioners: Smt.A.Chaya Devi

¶9

Counsel for the respondents: Smt.M.Venkateswari

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This civil revision petition is filed against the order, dated 25.07.2014, in I.A.No.738 of 2014 in O.S.No.896 of 2013, on the file of the learned VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶13

I have heard Smt.A.Chaya Devi, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Smt.M.Venkateswari, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶14

The petitioners filed the above-mentioned suit for declaration that they are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule properties, that the sale deed bearing No.4950 of 1997, dated 29.07.1997, executed by respondent No.2/defendant No.2 in favour of respondent No.1/defendant No.1 as null and void and for other allied reliefs. When the suit reached the stage of evidence of PW.3, the petitioners filed I.A.No.738 of 2014 under Order VII Rule 14(3) r/w Section 151 CPC for leave to produce the certified copy of order, dated 03.06.2013, in I.A.No.400 of 2013 in O.S.No.478 of 2013, on the file of the learned

¶15

VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The said application is dismissed by the lower Court by the order under revision.

¶16

In his affidavit filed in support of the application, petitioner No.5 stated that respondent No.2 has executed sale deed, dated 08.10.1997, in favour of one Md.Moin for an extent of 498 sq.yards of land which is in excess of the extent mentioned in the GPA executed by the petitioners, that the said sale deed was marked as Ex.A1 and that subsequently the said Md.Moin sold the same to third parties, who in turn has sold the property to one Nithin Kiran Kishore Pendkar who has filed O.S.No.478 of 2013 in the Court of the learned VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District against the petitioners for perpetual injunction and that in the said suit, he has filed an application for temporary injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with his possession. That by order, dated 03.06.2013, the Court has dismissed the application on merits. The petitioners therefore wanted to produce the said document through the evidence of PW.3. The respondents resisted the said application.

¶17

From a perusal of the order of the lower Court, it is evident that the application filed by the petitioners was dismissed mainly on two grounds, namely, (1) that the trial of the case is at an advanced stage and (2) that respondent No.2 is not a party to O.S.No.478 of 2013, and as such, the order passed in I.A.No.400 of 2013 in the said suit is not binding on him.

¶18

On a careful examination of the reasons assigned by the lower Court, I am not satisfied with the same. Under sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order VII, a document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint, but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not without the leave of the Court be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.

¶19

Thus, the Court is empowered to grant leave to the plaintiff to

¶20

produce a document after commencement of hearing of the suit. Though the statutory provision is not hedged in by any conditions for granting such leave, by judicial pronouncements, it is settled that a party has to satisfy the Court that in spite of due diligence, it could not produce the document along with the plaint. Undoubtedly, the petitioners failed to give reason for the belated production of the document which was admittedly in existence when the suit was filed. However, unless the Court feels that the party is guilty of gross negligence, ordinarily the request for production of additional evidence during the trial shall not be refused, for, the said additional evidence may help the Court to adjudicate the dispute in a proper and effectual manner. Though the petitioners ought to have given reasons for not filing the document along with the plaint, having regard to the fact that the evidence on the part of the petitioners is still not closed, the belated filing of the document cannot be viewed as constituting sole ground for its rejection.

¶21

The finding of the lower Court that the proposed document is not binding on respondent No.2 is rather premature. For considering an application for producing additional evidence, the Court can only consider relevancy of the document at that stage. If the Court is of the opinion that the document proposed to be filed is not relevant at all for the purpose of adjudication of the suit, it can dismiss the application. It cannot, however, examine whether the document proposed to be produced binds the defendant and what will be the effect of such document on the outcome of the suit. Those are the aspects which need to be adjudicated in the suit after trial.

¶22

In the aforementioned circumstances, I am of the opinion that it would be in the interests of justice that the petitioners are permitted to produce the said evidence subject to proof and its relevancy and with the right to the respondents to cross-examine the witness through whom the document is sought to be introduced.

¶23

The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed.

¶24

Since the petitioners failed to produce the document along with the plaint, they are saddled with costs of Rs.5,000/- payable to respondent No.1 within one week from the date of receipt a copy of this order.

¶25

As a sequel to disposal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.3701 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶26

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶27

05^th September, 2014 VGB

J. Bikshapathi v. Jarupula Rathan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J. Bikshapathi v. Jarupula Rathan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gajjala Janardhan Reddy Vs Food Corporation of India Employees

K.Yogender Reddy, Vs Smt. K.Usha Rani

Prakash Rao Dandgey Vs Satyanarayan Dandgey

M/s Independent Bank, Vs Mr. Brian Vanfarowe

Sri. M. Narasimha Reddy Vs K. Satti Reddy

Smt Karnati Ramadevi Vs Silveru Satyanarayana