High Court allowed civil revision rejecting trial court order denying petitioners time to file HC orders. Court held Order VI Rule 1A CPC error as no delay existed; admissibility/relevance for later consideration.
Civil Revision Petition allowed; impugned order dated 20.02.2020 set aside; petitioners entitled to file documents later.
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.
,N THE HIGH COURT FOR
or r"o'J*toiffEoF rELAN GANA
'f,flB'r"'ill lX i,''f^Hi?lIrofff ,,
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
ctvIL RE VIS loN PETITloN NO: 514 0F2020
Petition under Articre 227 0t rhe constitution of rndia, aggrieved by the order and decree dated'2002.2020 passed in r.A.No. 145 0t 2o2Oin o.s.No. 23 0t 2oo3 on the file of the Court of the principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.
Between:
AND
lA NO: 1 OF 2020
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No. 23 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI J. VENKATESWARA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON,BLESRI ]USTICE'CHALLAKODANDARAM L I I E I 4 T
ORDER:
ThisCiVilReVisionPetitionisfiledagainsttheorderdated20.02.2020 passed by thePrincipalsenior Civil Judge'at Warangal'in I'A No'145 of 2020 in O.S.No,23of 2003,rejecting the permissionsought by the petitioners to bringon recordthe certifiedcopies of the orders of the High Court in Crl,P.No.4222of 2002, W'P No'4189 of 2003 and LA'No'1 of 2019 in W.P.No.1983of 2019.
Heard the learnedcounsel for the petitioners, and the learned counsel for the respondents.
It is stated in theaffidavitfiled in support of I'A No' 145 of 2020 before the trial court thatthe saiddocuments were obtained by the counsel on 22.07.2020 and 11.02.2020from the High Court and as such these documents could not be filed earlier. Itis also further stated that these documents are required to be confrontedto the witnessesand the filing of these documents is necessary on account of Ex.A9.ThelearnedJudge, having considered respective submissions, hadrejectedthe contention of the respondents on the ground that the application was made belatedly and that the proposed documents are public documents and therefore they need not be proved by calling a witness and further the documents are not relevant to prove the case of the parties with regard to possession in view of the nature of suit.
Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that while the petitioners are claiming right over the property through a document dated 28.07.2003, the respondent/plaintiff is claiming right through the documents executed as far back as in 1993, and the suit itserf came to be filed on the day on which the a eged sare deeds were executed. He wourd further submit that the r'inding recorded by the rearned Judge that the
2
ctp_514-2A20 CKR, J
docurnenrs proposed b be fired are not rerevant cannot be found faurt with and prayS fOr dismissal of the CivilRevtsion petition.
Having regard to therespective submissions, this Court is of the view that the learned Judgetravelledbeyond the scopeof order viII Rule 1A of code of civilProcedure. There being no disputethat the documents itself came into existencein the year 2020 and therebeing no dispute that the suit ispending at this stage and the learned Judgehaving held that there is no delay in seekingto file relevant documents couldnot have rejected the prayerofthepetitionerS.Itmaybenotedthatthequestionofadmissibility or retevancyis requiredto be consideredwhen the documents are sought to be accepted or marked.At the stage of Order VIII Rule 14 of CPC' whatis requiredtobeconsiderediswhethertheyhadsufficientreasonsfornot producingthedoCUmentsattheearliestpointoftime.AsthelearnedJudge had held that thereis no delay,the learned JudgecouId not have dismissed the I.A. on thegroundof relevancy or otherwiseof the documents'
InthatVieWofthematter,thecivilRevisionPetitionisallowedby settingasidetheorderdated20.02.?020passedinI'A'No'145of2020in o.s.No.23 of 2003on the file of Principal Senior CivilJudge, at warangal, and by making itclearthat this Court has not expressed any view with respect to themerits of the matter or either admissibilityor relevancy of the documents sought tobe produced,and they are to be consideredon their own merits.No costs.Miscellaneouspetitlons,if any pending,shall stand closed.
SD/-K.SAILESHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// &
SECTION OFFICER
To, 1. The Principal SeniorCivil Judgeat Warangal. 2. One CC to Sri J.VenkateswaraReddy,Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies N,1IVK gbr
*'-
V
HIGH COURT
DATED: 0810412021
ORDER
CRP.No.S14 o12020
l; \L
.l"cqt i1l
o s$ lll
IrL $' .ul
,,/
+
ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION.
{/f,,
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioners request to produce certified copies of High Court orders on grounds of belated filing and lack of relevance.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
N. Hemalatha
N. Jayachandar
S. Vadavarao
Challa Kodanda Ram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
