The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition against an appellate court's order rejecting an application to produce documents, noting the petitioner's failure to file the essential plaint and grounds of appeal.
The civil revision petition was dismissed, and a connected C.R.P.M.P. stood disposed of as infructuous.
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 C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3381 of 2013
Dated: 28.08.2014
Between: The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. Rep. by its Branch Manager, Registered Office at Karur, Tamilnadu, Branch Office at Dharmavaram, Ananthapuram District. .. Petitioner and K. Gangadhar Rao .. Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. S. Lakshmikanth For Mr. Deepak Bhattacharjee Counsel for the respondent: Mr. S. Nyaya Murthy
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This civil revision petition arises out of order dated 15.03.2013 in I.A.No.702 of 2012 in A.S.No.202 of 2008 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District.
The petitioner filed O.S.No.334 of 2002 against the respondent for recovery of the housing loan amount received by him along with interest. The respondent filed a written statement, wherein he has inter alia averred that by the time he was dismissed from service by the petitioner, a sum of Rs.3,48,537.75 ps. payable towards gratuity, bank’s contribution to provident fund, staff security deposit and L.I.C. policy’s surrender value accrued to his account and that the petitioner ought to have adjusted the same towards housing loan. Accepting the said stand, the trial Court has dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed A.S.No.202 of 2008. It appears, when the case reached the stage of arguments, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.702 of 2012 under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. for receiving the documents, namely; the Karur Vysya Bank Limited Employees’ Provident Fund Rules and the minutes of the discussions held on 25.09.1980, for the purpose of marking them as Exs.A13 and A14. The lower Court has dismissed the said application, by the order under revision, on the ground that the proposed documents were neither pleaded (before the trial Court) nor there is a mention in the grounds of appeal regarding the said documents and that, therefore, both the documents have no bearing on the disposal of the appeal.
As the petitioner has not filed the plaint and the grounds of appeal, this Court, on 14.08.2014, adjourned the case to enable it to
file copies of the plaint and grounds of appeal. Today, at the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he could not secure the said documents.
It is well settled legal position that any amount of evidence, either documentary or oral, cannot be relied upon in the absence of pleadings. The petitioner is evidently proposing to advance a submission that as per the Rules, which are proposed to be filed by it in the appeal, the bank is entitled to forfeit the gratuity and the employer’s contribution of provident fund, if an employee indulged in causing loss to the employer. In my opinion, in the absence of any plea in this regard either in the suit or at least in the appeal, these documents will have no relevance in adjudicating the dispute before the lower appellate Court. In the face of the finding of the lower appellate Court that as the petitioner has not pleaded before the trial Court as well as in the appeal that it is entitled to forfeit the amount payable to the respondent, it has rightly dismissed the petitioner’s application. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower appellate Court at this stage and that too when the appeal is stated to have been reserved for judgment.
The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.4491 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
28th August, 2014 IBL
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the civil revision petition needs to be allowed when the petitioner failed to file the plaint and grounds of appeal after being adjourned.
The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd.
K. Gangadhar Rao
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
