Dismissed

Vandanau , Anumndla Rajamani , Rajeshwari v. Yedamakanti Jyothi Rani

Telangana HC10 Aug 2021CRP/632/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two civil revision petitions seeking to quash an order allowing the plaintiff to submit additional revenue extract evidence during cross-examination. The court upheld the trial court's discretion, finding no abuse of process or protraction of the suit.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petitions were dismissed, dismissing the plea to stay the proceedings in the suit.

Vandanau , Anumndla Rajamani , Rajeshwari Vs… — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS. 630 AND 632 OF 2021

¶6

cRP.NO.630 0F 2021:

¶7

Petition under Article 227 ot the Constitution of lndia against the order dated 18-03-2021 in 1.A.No.103 oI 2020 in O.S.No.163 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Vandanapu Anumundla Rajamani @ Rajeshwari, W/o. Srinivas, aged about 36 years, @occ: Household, R/o. Ka nnegundla village, Dornakal Mandal, lVahabubabad District

¶10

...PETITIONER/5th DEFENDANT

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Yedamakanti Jyothi Rani, W/o. Srinivas Rao, aged about 50 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Dornakal village and Mandal, IVlahabubabad District.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

¶14

Vandanapu Venkat Rao (died),

¶15

Vemulapalli Vi.iaylaxmi, W/o. Bixamaiah, aged about 60 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Bachodu village, Thirumalayapalem Mandal, Khammam District.

¶16

Soma Dhanalaxmi, W/o. Seethapathi, aged about 50 years, Occ. Household, Fl/o. Garla Village and Mandal, Khammam District.

¶17

Kalakota Vanisree, Wo. Venkateshwarlu, aged about 40 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Garla Village and Mandal, Khammam District.

¶18

Avudoddi Pullaiah, S/o. Yeliaiah, aged about 50 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Kannegundla village, dornakal Mandal, Mahabubabad District.-

¶19

gadavath Samya, S/o. Thulsya, aged about 42years,Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Kannegundla villaQe, domakal Mandal, Mahabubabad District. (died)

¶20

(The respondents 2 to 7 are not necessary parties to this revision)

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶23

Petition under section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased ro stay of all further proceedings in the suit including the further trial of the suit in o.s. No. 163/2012 on the file of the senior civil Judge, Mahabubabad, pending disposal of main revision.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. DAMODAR REDDy

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No..l: SRI V. ROHITH

¶26

cRP.NO.632 OF 2021:

¶27

Petition under Article 227 of lhe constitution^{of lndia aggrieved by the order} in 1.A.No.102 0l 2020 in o.S.No.163 0l^{2012 0n the file of the court of the Senior} Civil Judge at Mahabubabad.

¶28

Between:

¶29

Vandanaou @ Anumundla Raiamani @^{Rajeshwari,Wio Srinivas, aged about} io Gri[, 5..,^{Household,'Fl/o. Kanndgundlavillage'DornakalMandal'} Mahabubabad District.

¶30

,..PETITIONER/sth DEFENDANT

¶31

AND

¶32

Yedamakanti Jyothi^{Rani, W/o. SrinivasRa.o} r^{qO.ep about 50,years, Occ'} Horie*ite R/o^{Dornakai village and Mandal, Mahabubabad District'}

¶33

...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

¶34

2 Vandanapu Venkat^Rao(died)'

¶35

3 Vemulaoalli viiavlaxmi,^{w/o. Bixamaiah, aged about 60 years, occ.Household,} nyo. eaEftdu'titiage,^{-ihirumalayapalem Mandal, Khammam District'}

¶36

4 SomaDhanalaxmi,W/o.Seethapathi,agedabout50years,OccHousehold' Fl/o. Garla Village^{and Mandal, Khammam District'}

¶37

( Kalakota Vanisree,^{w/o. venkateshwarlu, aged about 40 years, occ.Household,} PJo. Garla Village and^{Mandal, Khammam District'}

¶38

n Avudoddi Pullaiah,^{S/o. Yeliaiah, aged about50 years,} -Occ^{Agriculture' R/o} xinnegrnoti village,^{dornakalManidal'Mahabubabad District'}

¶39

7 Badavath Samva, S/o.^{Thulsya, aged about 42 yeats, Occ Agrrculture' R/o'} K;;;;g;rdh vitiage,^{oomat<al Ma-ndal,MahabubabadDistrict (died)}

¶40

(The respondents 2 to 7 are^{not necessary parties to this revision)}

¶41

..,RESPONDENTS

¶42

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶43

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed therewith,^{the High court may be pleased to stay of all further} proceedings in the suit including^{the further trial of the suit in o.s. No. 163/2012on} the file of the Senior^{Civil Judge, Mahabubabad.}

¶44

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI M. DAMODAR REDDY}

¶45

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1:SRI V. ROHITH}

¶46

The Court made the^{following:COMMON ORDER}

¶47

PNR,J CRP Nos.630 &⁶³² oJ2aJl

¶48

¶49

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P,NAVEEN RAO

¶50

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.630 AND 632 0F 2021

¶51

COMMON ORDER:

¶52

Heard Mr. M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. V.Rohith learned counsel for respondent no.1 in both the revision petitions.

¶53

Revision petitioner is the 5th defendant in O.S.No. 163 of 2012 pending in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad. First respondent is plaintiff. Parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

¶54

Plaintiff instituted O.S.No.163 of 2Ol2 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad praying to grant preliminary decree holding that plaintiff and defendant nos.2 to 5 are entitled to 1/ sth share each in the suit schedule 'A' property and to appoint Advocate-Commissioner to divide suit schedule property at the rate of 1/Str share each. Plaintiff filed LA.No.103 of 2020 under Section f 51 C.P.C. praying to grant leave and permit the plaintilf to file additional chief-affidavit of P.W. 1 . Plaintiff also filed 1.A.No.102 ot 2O2O under Order VII Rule 14⁽¹⁾ and⁽³⁾ read with Section 151 of C.P,C.,^praying to condone the delay^{in filing the list} of documents. By orders dated i8.03.2021, Court below allowed l.A.Nos. 102 and 1,O3 of 2O2O.

¶55

Learned counsel for 5e defendant Mr. Damodar Reddy submitted that when the suit was instituted in the year 2012, plaintiff claimed that suit scheduled properties are the joint family properties of her father and sought for partition. This claim of the plaintiff was opposed by the sth defendant. Sth defendant filed

¶56

¶57

written statement asserting that^{suit scheduleproperties are not} joint family properties, but are the properties belonging^{to lather of} the plaintiff. He therefore^{submittedthat all alongit was a specific} case that suit schedule^{propertiesare not joint family properties,} but properties belong to^{fatherof the plaintiff.Therefore, after} completion of evidence of^{plaintiff,atthe stage ofcross-} examination, plaintifl cannot^{seek to bring additional evidence} contrary to her consistent^stand.

¶58

He further submitted that^{it is settled principle of law that} plaintiff has to furnish list of documents,^{on whichrelianceis} placed when suit was instituted and should^{be markedduring the} course of recording o[ evidence^{of plaintiff' Plaintiffcouldnot have} kept quiet al1 aiong, allow the completion^{of evidenceof plaintiff} and when matter is coming up for^{cross-examinationol the} plaintiff, she could not have fi1ed these petitions.^{Such course is} not permissible, is contrary to Order VII Rule¹⁴ of^{CPC and in} violation of principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble^Supreme Court and this Court. These^petitions are^{filed only to dragon the} suit and protract the litigation. In support of his^contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision^{ol this Courtin} Uppu Hymavathi Mahila Sangam, rep.by^itsPresident M.Anjana Devi and others vs. Sri^{Vldyaniketan PublicSchool,} rep.by its Correspondent,^{Anakapalle and othersr.}

¶59

Per contra, learned counsel^{for plaintiffsubmittedthat there} is no change in the stand^{of plaintiff.What is sought to be} presented is onll' the extracts^{of the revenue recordsto establish}

¶60

'²⁰¹⁸ {2)^ArT26

¶61

PNR.J CRP Nos 630 & 6i2 oJ202l

¶62

¶63

how the ontries reflected the^{status of suit scheduleland and they} are public documents. There is no absolute bar to^present the additional evidence. In the interest of^justice and for^proper adjudication, additional evidence can be^presented at any^timeof the trial. He would submit that the discretion was^validly exercised by the trial Court and, therefore, no case is^made out^for interference of this Court in revisional^{jurisdiction.} He further submitted that no prejudice is caused to the^petitionerby reopening the evidence of the plaintiff to present additional evidence.

¶64

A parry to a suit should^present his evidence at^{the earliest} point of time. That being so, it has become routine for^parties to introduce additional evidence during various stages of the^suit. Filing petition after petition by^parties to the litigation^{on oneplea} or the other is the major impediment^{in disposal of civil cases} expeditiously. In order to curb the^practice of^{partiesproducing} additional evidence at any stage^{of the suit proceedings resulting in} protracting the litigation causing inordinate^{delayin conclusionof} the cases in the civil Courts,^{Order VII Rule 14 CPC wasamended} by Act 46 of 1999. Sub-Rule^{(1) mandates,plaintilf to furnish the} list of documents on^{which reliance is placed by him, to produce} the same in the Court^{when the plaint is presentedandshall} deliver the documents and^{copiesthereof to be fi1ed with the plaint'} Sub-Rule (2) requires that^{if a documentis not in possession or} power of the plaintiff, he should state in^{whose possession and} power the said document is available' Sub-Rule^{(3) carves out an} exception to Sub-Rules^{(1) and (2\ and enablesplaintiffs to file} additional evidence which^{was not shown in the list of documents}

¶65

rt ft.,t CRP,:os 6J0 & 632 of202l

¶66

filed along with the plaint. Sub-Rule (3) vests discretion in the trial Court to permit additional evidence which could not be filed along with the piaint.

¶67

Having regard to the scheme of CPC, the plaintiff has to seek leave of the Court to present additional evidence which was not shown in the list of documents filed along with the plaint and/or shown but documents were not filed as they were not in his possession / unavailable/ could not be discovered. He must also explain relevancy of those documents. Thus, presentation of additional evidence after the plaint v/as filed is not a matter of course. Only on satisfaction of the reasons assigned and on consideration of the relevancy of the documents, the trial Court may exercise its discretion to permit presentation of the additional documents. Satislaction of the Court to accept the plea o1'plaintifl to present additional evidence at a later stage depends on the facts of the case, the nature of documents sought to be presented, reasons assigned, genuineness of the claim and the stage of the suit. The trial Court is required to assess the bonafdes of the claim and whether such additional evidence would aid ir-r proper adjudication of the suit claim while exercising its discretion. Similar provision is incorporated in Order VIII Rule 1-A of CPC with reference to defendant's piea.

¶68

Amendments carried out to Order VII of CPC are intended to curb the tendency of filing documents after plaint was filed and to discipline the parties. The scope of amended Order VII Rule 14 of CPC and the discretion vested in the civil Court was subject of

¶69

PNR,J CRP Nos.630 & 632 ol2O2l

¶70

¶71

debate and decision in plethora of precedents. Sulficient to note few of land mark decisions as under.

¶72

9.1. It is no doubt true that, 'Procedural lau not to be a tArant but a seruant, not on obstruction but an aid to justice. procedural presciptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubicant, not a resbtant in the administration of justice'(Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab Vs. Kumar and others2- paragraph-14). However, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph_ 13, 'no person has a uested right in anA course of procedure, He has onlg the ight of prosecution or defence in the manner for th_e time being bg or for the court in which the case b pending, and. if, by an Act of Parliament the mode of procedure is altered, he has no other ight than to proceed according to the altered mode." (see Blgth Vs.Blgth (1996) 1 Atl ER 524)'.

¶73

9.2. In BAGAI CONSTRUCTION Vs cUpTA BUILDING

¶74

MATERIAL STORET, the Trial Court rejected the applications filed under Order VII/Rulel4 read with Section 151 of CpC and Order 18/Rule 1.7 of CPC. In the revision, the High Court reversed the decision of the Trial Court. On appeal Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Trial Court. Supreme Court observed as under:

¶75

"15. Alter change of various provisions by way of amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure, it is desirable that the recording of evidence should be continuous and lollowed by arguments and decision thereon within a reasonable time. Thjs Court has repeatedly held that courts should constantly endeavour to follow such a time schedule. lf the same is not followed, the purpose of amending several provisions in the Code would get defeated. In fact, appllcatlons for ad,Journments, reopenlng aftd, recalllng qre lnterlm measures, could be cs..1tar cs possl ble auold.ed anil onlg ln compelling and. acceptable reasons, those o;ppllco,tions q.re to be consid.ered.....,." (emphasis supplied)

¶76

'?1zooo1^{I scc ao} '(zor3)^{ta sccL}

¶77

¶78

9.3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also considered^{the dccision in}

¶79

K,K.Velusamy v. N,Palanisamy4, In K.K'Velusamy,^{the Hon'ble}

¶80

Supreme Court observed as under:

¶81

"15. .......The need for the court to act in a manner to^achieve the en(ls o:^{justice (subject} to the^need to comply^{with the la\l} does not end when arguments are heard and^judgmentis reserved. If there is abuse of the^process of the court,^{or if} interests of^justice require the court to do something^{or take} note of something, the discretion to do those^{thingsdoes not} disappear merely because the arguments^{are heard, eitherfully} or partly. "

¶82

9.4. As held in Voruganti Narayaan Rao vs.^Bodla Rammurthy and otherss, unless reasons assigned^{sholn'sufficient} cause Court should not permit presentation of additional^evidence. As held in Ravi Satish vs. Edala Durga Prasad6 case^{grant of leave} by the Court is not for mere asking and Court is not acting^like a post-office.

¶83

9.5. The scope of power of trial Court in resorting to provision under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 15 1 of CPC u'as considered by the Supreme Court in K.K.Velusamy. Supreme Court obseri,ed that though Order XVIII Rule 17 enables the Court, at any stage of the suit, to recall any witness, who was already examined and to put such question as it thinks fit, but should be exercised sparingiy, in appropriate cases, to meet the ends of justice, should not be allowed to be used to abuse process of law and to protract t.he litigation.

¶84

9.6. Supreme Court has delineated various issues that^require consideration in exercise of power under section^{151 CPC.} Supreme Court cautioned that^provision under^{scctionI 5 1 CPC}

¶85

'^{(zorr) rr scc zrs} t zorr {e) aLo raa " 2oo9^{(3)ALT 236}

¶86

PNR.,J cRP Nos 630 & 632 oJ2Dt

¶87

¶88

cannot be routinely invoked for reopening the evidence or recalling the witnesses and should be used only to secure the ends ofjustice and to prevent abuse of its process; that the availability of power under Section 151 CpC is coextensive and may be used where the remedy or procedure is not provided in CpC. It is complementary. Since no guidelines are prescribed in CpC, such power should be resorted to sparingly and in exercise of sound discretion ancl the wisdom of the Court and in given facts and circumstances oI the case, which would have to be used with circumspection and carc. It is not intended to be used to filr up omissions in the evidence of a witness who was alreadv examined.

¶89

9.7 . Supreme Court further observed as under:

¶90

"L4 ........ But if there is a time gap between the completion of "uiggl9.^{and hearingof the arguments, for whatsoeverreason,} and if in that interregnum, a party comes across some evidence which_ he could not lay his hands on earlier, or some evidence in regard to the conduct or action of the other party comes into existence, the court may in exercise of its inhe;ent power under Section 151 of the Code, permit the production of such evidence if it is relevant and necessary in the interest ofjustice, subject to such terms as the court may deem flt to impos;."

¶91

The principle deducible from these decisions is, discretionary power vested in Order Vil Rule 14 read with Section 151 CpC or independently under Section 151 should be exercised sparingly and such applications should be accepted only for compelling reasons and on sufficient justification being shown, overarching consideration being to do substantial justice inter parties. The bona fides of the party which seek to introduce additional evidence should be considered and cannot be allowed in a routine manner.

¶92

1 1. It has to be remembered that mere non_mention of the documents in the plaint or subsequent incidental or supplemental

¶93

¶94

proceedings in the suit does not in^{any manner affect the power of} the Court to grant^{leave to produceadditionalevidence at the} subsequent stage.^{Non-mentioningof the documentsinitial, which} are sought to be^produced at^{the subsequent stage, is a curable} defect. However, the Hon'ble^{SupremeCourtand this Court} consistently cautioning^{the trial Courts not to adopt unduly liberal} approach in such^{matters. Thus, while consideringthe application} to present additional^{evidencethe Courtmust exercise sound} discretion keeping^{in mind the requirement to elicit truth and to} render substantial^{justice between the parties.}

¶95

The \2. The suit is^{at the stage of cross-examinationof P W l} documents sought to^{be presentedare extracts from thc rcvcnue} records. They only reflect^{the entriesinrevenuerecords'} Production of these^{documents does not impinge upon in any} manner right of defence^{of defendants.Defendantscan aiu'ays call} upon the plaintiff to^{prove the genuineness of the documents'}

¶96

In the facts of^{these cases, Ido not see any error ln} exercising discretion by^{the Court below acceptingthe plea of} petitioner/ plaintiff. Civil Revision^{Petitions fail'Theyare} accordingly dismissed.^{It isneedless toobsetwe that the} presentation of additional^{evidence is subject to relevancy and} admissibitiw^{of the documents.Pending miscellaneous peLitions if} any shall^standclosed

¶97

Sd/-B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR ,TRUE^COPY// (io

¶98

SECTION^OFFICER

¶99

To,

¶100