Allowed

Mitya Naik v. K. Ramakrishna Reddy

Telangana HC3 Mar 2023CRP/1362/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition under Article 227, the High Court set aside the trial court's order allowing a respondent to file documents at a belated stage of nearly 12 years without assigning reasons for the delay. The court held that absolute reasons for delay must be assigned otherwise the leave would not be granted. The current CRP was allowed. No costs.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the trial court allowing the Late Filing of documents is set aside. The CRP allowed.

Mitya Naik Vs K. Ramakrishna Reddy — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵⁸ I

¶2

ri * )l

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of the constitution of lndia against the order dated 14-02-2022 in l.A No- 41 of 2019 in oS No. 339 of 2006 on the fite of the court of the Principal Junior civil Judge, Vikarabad District at vikarabad District.

¶8

Between:

¶9

tMitya Naik, s/o. Late Reviva Naik,.qqed about 37.yegp, occ. Agricurturist, R/o. Kota las udem vi uase, Vl<urroi'o rfi ilij;i vllJirrili,ilriiili. "

¶10

AND

¶11

...PET|TIoNERyPLA|NTTFF

¶12

K. Ramakrishna &d.dy, S/o. Late Venkat Reddy, qgqd about 64 years, Occ Agricurturist, R/o. puruiumamiaiViirig;, vik;;;6lJ"rraJnfir'i,"vir,liriro District.

¶13

...RESPONDE NT/DEFENDANT

¶14

IA 10F

¶15

¶16

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in os No. 339 0f 2006 0n the file of the Honble Principal Junior civil Judge, vikarabad District, at Vikarabad, pending disposal of the instant CRP

¶17

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶18

Between:

¶19

&dilll,?H:[?S8",?iJ#:hia?'f District^{,,yf#1,[,",.Xtto'fl,:l3f} -s-' $,fl ;*;;A!.,o""

¶20

;;;;"*=*REspoNDENr

¶21

'! AND

¶22

lvlitya Naik, S/o. Late Reviya Naik, aged about 37 years, Occ. Agriculturist, RJo. Kotalagudem Village, Vikarabad Mandal, Vikarahad District.

¶23

...RESPONDENT/PETITION ER

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to vacate the interim stay order dated 27-06-2022^passed in C.R.P.No.1362 of²⁰²² consequently dismiss the same.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI R. ANURAG

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent SR! K. LAKSHMI MANOHAR

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

¶29

CRP.NO.1362 of 2022

¶30

JUDGMENT :

¶31

Being aggrieved by the order dated 14-02-2022 bV which the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, hereinafter will be referred as trial court, disposed I.A.No.41 of 2019 and allowed the request of the respondent to receive some documents, the petitioner who is plaintiff in the main suit vide OS.No.339 of 2006 preferred this revision under Article 227 of the constitution of India

¶32

As per the record filed in this revision, it seems the petitioner is plaintiff in O.S.No.339 of 2006 and during the pendency of the said suit, the respondent/defendant filed a petition under Order B Rule 3(A) r/w Section 151 C.P.C. and sought the leave of the Court to file 14 different documents. As per the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner/ defendant has claimed that OS.No.339 of 2006 was filed by the respondent, who is petitioner herein for injunction in respect of land in Sy.No.237/AA2 admeasuring Ac.03-39 gts. The defendant also filed a suit against the petitioner herein vide OS.No.342 of 2006 before the same court. The defendant was examined as PW.1

¶33

"':

¶34

¶35

SSRN,J CRP No.1362 of 2022

¶36

and he has marked some documents as Exs.Al to A14. The respondent/defendant wanted to file certified copies of those documents in OS.No.339 of 2006 and sought the leave of the Court. This petition is opposed by the petitioner herein. He has filed a counter affidavit stating that all the documents sought to be produced before the Court are fabricated for the purpose of the suit. Some of the documents are not the original documents. Photostat copies cannot be permitted to be received. If those documents are received, it would cause prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and sought for dismissal of the petition. However, the learned trial Judge allowed the petition with the following observation.

¶37

"By considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to receive the documents for proper adjudication of the case, in the interest of^justice and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, as no prejudice is caused to the respondent/plaintiff, if the said documents are received as the respondent/plaintiff is having a right to cross-examine the witnesses on the said documents.

¶38

In the result, the petition is allowed subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility. Further, the petitioner/defendant is hereby directed to get ready for making of documents and hearing without seeking further adjournment".

¶39

The present revision is filed on the following grounds :

¶40

The trial court failed to consider the established principles of law and passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner

¶41

¶42

SSRN,J CRP No.1362 of 2022

¶43

without ascertaining the previous Court proceedings. But the Court below ought to have exercised the^powers vested in it under Order B Rule 3 C.P.C. for determination of the delay of L2^years in filing the documerits. The Court below failed to appreciate that in the absence of valid and sufficient reasons for the failure in filing the documents with the written statement, the Court could not have allowed the request at the belated stage of 10 years after filing the suit. The Court below failed to appreciate that the documents sought to be received were not original documents nor they are certified copies but only photocopies, thereby they could not have been received by the trial court. Therefore, the petitioner sought for setting aside the order.

¶44

Heard both parties.

¶45

Now the point for consideration is :

¶46

Whether the Court below failed to consider Order B Rule 1 A(3) C.P.C. and allowed the application filed by the respondent without assigning any reasons, thereby, the order is liable to be set aside?

¶47

Admittedly, the suit in which the respondent/defendant filed I.A.No.41 of 2018, was filed during 2006 and there was another suit filed by the defendant vide os.No.342 of 2006 which was also filed in the same year. As per the affidavit filed by the

¶48

¶49

¶50

SSRN,J CRP No.1362 of 2022

¶51

defendant in support of the above referred petition, it is guite crear that he has fired certain documents in his own suit and got them marked as Exs.A1 to A14 and now he wanted to fire photocopies of those documents in the suit fired by the petitioner herein. As per the description shown in the affidavit, the documents sought to be produced before the triar court are ord documents and some of them are prior to 2006. The defendant did not assign any reason for his fairure r:o fire those documents arong with the written statement. The petition vide I.A.No.41 0f 2018 was fited about 12 years after the firing of suit and more than 10 years after firing his written statement before the triar court. The petitioner did not state a singre reason for the deray in firing these documents except saying that they are important documents. The defendant did not explain the deray whire seeking reave of the court. As righuy argued by the rearned counser for the petitioner herein, absorutery no reason is assigned by the trial Judge for allowing the application. The observation made by the Court below that receiving the documents may not cause any prejudice to the petitioner/praintiff is not a ground for granting reave.

¶52

ul A

¶53

.,-,::le*-- ia!

¶54

"A document which ought lo be produced in court by the defendant under this rure' but, is not so produced sha, not, without the reave of the court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit,,.

¶55

¶56

SSRN,J CRP No.7362 of 2022

¶57

Therefore, the party who sought to file certain

¶58

documents at a belated stage shall explain the reasons for his failure in filing the documents and Court shall give its reasoning for granting such leave. Here is this particular case the respondent did not assign any such reasons and the court below failed to exercise its discretion in a proper way. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶59

B. In the result, C.R.p. is allowed.

¶60

consequently, Miscellaneous apprications if any, are closed. No costs.

ASSISTANT REGI

//TRUE COPY//

To,

The Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad District at Vikarabad.

¶65

One CC to Sri R. Anurag, Advocate [OPUC]

¶66

One CC to Sri K. Lakshmi Manohar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶67

Two CD Copies gbr

A^-

HIGH COURT

DATED:03/03/2023

ORDER

CRP.No.1362 of 2022

t\E S'i-/r'1{-
t,.Y
*,
2g nilfi ?[m
,. J,

¶74

ALLOWING THE CRP

¶75

tu
v?

Mitya Naik v. K. Ramakrishna Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mitya Naik v. K. Ramakrishna Reddy

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

B. Subash Vs G. Raju

P. Narsinga Rao Vs Smt Gokari Kamalamma

Pabbathi Jyothi Vs Devireddy Ravindranath Reddy

Smt. Paleti Vijayalaxmi Vs C.Subhadra

Khaja Sabhu and 3 others Vs a. Chandra Prakash Reddy

Baiti Pothappa Vs Chelikani Harinadh