Allowed

Thota Srinivas v. Thota Aruna

Telangana HC20 Mar 2023CRP/1927/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision allowed by Telangana High Court holding trial Court erred in dismissing petitioners' IA to file documents at interim stage. Apex Court principles say rules of procedure are 'hand-made' for justice; correction ordered.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; order of trial Court dismissing IA set aside; petitioners granted leave to file documents with opportunity to lead additional evidence.

Thota Srinivas Vs Thota Aruna — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s81

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

IIONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:^'1927 OF 2021

¶8

Petition under Arlicle 227 of Constitution of lndia, against the Order dated ,1811112021^{in lA No.658/2021in OS No.50/2019on the frle of the Courtof the Vl} Additional District Judge, at Mahabubabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Thota Srinivas, S/o Late Rammurthy, Age. 52^yrs, Occ. Govt Employee 2. Thota Yadagiri, S/o Late Rammurthy, Age. 52^yrs, Occ. Govt Employee Both are Fl/o H.No. 3-4-28, Old Abadi, Ir/ahaboobabad Town and District. ...REVISION PETITIONERS/ DEFENOANT NO.3 & 4

¶11

AND

¶12

Thota Aruna, Wo Bixapathi Age. 44 yrs, Occ. House Wife,

¶13

Rl/o. Mahaboobabad

¶14

Battu Kalya Chakravathy, S/o Aarlappa Age. 35^yrs, Occ. Business^Fl/o Krishnapuram, Khammam District.

¶15

Domala Shoba, W/o Madhu Age. 43^yrs. Occ. House Wrfe^R:/o Cherlapalem, Mahaboobabad

¶16

.. Res pondents/Plaintiffs

¶17

Shivalaya Narahari, S/o Pochaiah, Age. 49^yrs, Occ- Business Rl/o H.No. 1-62121651107171, Gangaputra Colony, Musheerabad, Hyderabad

¶18

Thota Hyma, Wo Ravi Age. 29 Occ. House Wife, R/o H.No. 3-2 9511, Mahaboobabad District.

¶19

6- Deshaboina Rammurthy, S/o Late Rama Swamy Age. 59 yrs Occ. Business Rl/o H.No. 3-5-1 1/A, Hanumanthunigadda, Old Abadi, Mahaboobabad

¶20

Surnapu Somaiah, S/o Late Lingaiah Age.55 yrs, Occ Business Rl/o H.No. 1 -6-93, Gumnoor, Mahaboobabad Distnct,

¶21

( Respondents 4 to 7 are not n""".'iH 83t3?liJ3i*tffJo N D E Nrs 4 r o 7 t

¶22

DEFENDANTS NO.1,2, 5 AND

¶23

For the Petitioners : SRI KIRAN PALAKURTHY, Advocate

¶24

For the Respondent Nos.1 to3 : SRI KARRA SRINIVAS, Advocate

¶25

For the Respondent Nos.4 to 7 : NONE APPEARED

¶26

The Court delivered the following : JUDGMENT

¶27

HONOURT: BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASM RAO NAIDU

¶28

C.R.P.NO.1927 of 2O2t

¶29

JUDGMENT :

¶30

Be nci aqc re vr:d by the order oF learned VI Adcit onal District ludge, I'lahatr.ltr rt ad, herein after will be referred as r_.ial Court, in IA.No.658 of 21 21 in OS.No.50 of 2019, where rrc.er the tnal Courl ciLsrr: sse: lhe request of the petitione. fr e some documt:nts .ll t' e tnterlocutory stage, the pet,tione-;^/defendants have f,led th(r I e,]ent Crvil Revision Petition under ,\r:icl,t 227 of Constitut oI of I-d a on the following grounds.

¶31

The r al Court failed to exercise its jrtr sdiction to recerve Il-!]^.l()( ur rr nts on behalf of petitioner. The tr a l rlor- rt failed to sce:ir:t llr,r a. )[) c,rtion filed by the petitioners was art ttle staqe of rn t-: r lc r .,,.'r r^,, . p rli:ations. Thereby, an opportunit,/ :oL d have bcerr grvr:'r to th t etttroners to lead evidence but the ( ourt belol^r falied to n\o<e t €, irherent powers under Secti()n 151 C,F,.C. The petrtrcn,tr! 'rrrr.hi I laimed that the Court below failecl :o see thJi no pre;L,d[e i_()-]1: I e caused to anyone, if a chance r; r; ve| to the petrtroncrs trcTtrr The Court below failed to apf ) -i)ci. te the rcasons rrienl cn. c] by the petitioners in the affidi)v t trled n SLrpparr^'i|rr .tp:lication and the Court belo\i fa led to

¶32

2 55RN,J C R.P No 1927 of 2021

¶33

understand that the concept of Res-judicata ls not applicable to interlocutory applications. Therefore, they sought for setting aside the order impugned in the present revision and sought^permission to produce the documents.

¶34

As could be seen from the order impugned in the present revision, it seems the petitioners herein have filed IA.No.658 of 2O2L under Order VIII Rule 1(A) (3) r/w Section¹⁵¹ of C.P.C. and sought to file some documents^{in IA.No.600of 2021.} The petitioners have filed 12 documents before^{the trial Courtand} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the} 3rd^{petitioner/defend} a nt No.3 has^{submitted thatthe} respondents/plaintiffs filed the main suit for^{Perpetual Injunction} which is pending before the trial Court.^{They have filed written} statement and defendant No.1^{got filed some more documentsin} support of the case. The^{parties haveadvancedargumentsin} IA.No.600 of 2021. The^{responde nts/ plain tiffs have claimed that} they^purchased land bearing^{Sy'No.166/B from the originalowner} by name Thota Veeraiah^{and Thota Bixapathi. In fact, the said} Veeraiah and Bixapathi are^{neither owners nor possessorsof the} suit land at any^point of time'^{The petitionerscameto know that} there were disputes regarding^{the land bearingSy No 166/B} between Nuthakki Prasad^Rao and^{others and Thota Ravi and}

¶35

55RN,] ( H P No 1927 ol 2021

¶36

I N

¶37

others bef,tr, he Court vide OS.No.13 of 20LL. fh€r petitioners came to knc v that the sub.Ject matter of the sui: is i1 respect ot Sy.No.1{;6/B v/h ch s situated away frorn th3 suit schedule property. r-hr rt:f.re, the petitioners have obtarrr:ri the certified copies (lf [ ] rt. written statement and dep:l,iticns of the witnesses rn :l-e above referred suit. Thereb1,, .:he petitioners wanted [o r, :hose documents to prove tf(]ir :laim. The petrttone-s h: vI further stated that the original )wner namely Thota MLthaii: r scld the land by way of plots to diffi:rerrt persons. The petitione'; lave obtained the Encumbrance C t:rtificate which Shoy/s th'l sa ( r)f plots by said Muthaiah. As per ihe locuments obtained by tlr I p€tition€rs, the tand in Sy.No.166/ti was disposed long b.rck. f rr :r :f,rre, the petitioners wanted to firer aI the above refe rrc,rJ c(), 1r, (r rt,; Tney could not file the docum:rrtS since they obtaincJ th-, c rc Jnrents recenUy. They have also c a)imed that the documenti so. glrt to be marked/rired are cruciar croc.ments to prove the r c lr, there[y, they prayed for lea /(: to file the docu mr:rt:,

¶38

Tr(, irsponde nts/plaintiffs opposed the p,3tition. They have f led .: i. )L nter stating that prior to rhe at)l)ve referred petrtron, tl-i: rrel t or ers,/Cefendants filed slmilar appl r:rtions with a request to qra.t le.),e for frltng documentS DUt ttCSe petitions

¶39

SSRN,] C R P No 1927 oi^.1021

¶40

¶41

WeredismissedandagaintheyfiledtheapplicationWithasimilar request, thereby,^{prayed for dismissal of the petition'}

¶42

The trial Court having^{consideredthe argumentsand} affidavits of both^{parties, dismissedthe applicationvide order} dated 1B-11-2021.

¶43

Heard both Parties.

¶44

Now the^{point for considerationis :}

¶45

WhethertheCourtbelowcommittedanerrorbydtsmissrngthepetltlon frled by the petrtioners,^{if so, whetherthe petitioners are entitled to leaveto frle} docu ments?

¶46

B. The learned^{counsel for the petitioners has submitted} that the above^{referred interlocutory applicationwas filed at the} stage of advancing^{argumentsin an injunctionapplication} Therefore,theCourtbelowoughttohaveallowedthereqUestof the^{petitionersand received the documents'The counsel has} further submitted^{that the principlesof Res-judicatawill not apply} to interlocutory^{applications. The counsel has placed relianceon a} Judgment between^{'Levaku Pedda Reddammaand othersvs'} Gottumukkuta^{Venkata Subbammaand anotherl} and " submitted that^{the Court below ought to have granted Ieave so} that the^{petitioners could have disproved the contentionsof the} respondents/Plai^ntiffs.

¶47

I2022 Lawsuit (sc) 739

¶48

¶49

S5RN,J C.R P No.1927of2021

¶50

tr > per the averments made in the alfid,rvit filed in support of tl- I ,tetition and as per the arguments e(_lvanced by the learned corrr e fcr the petitioners herein, it Seerrr::; even prior to filing the at)ove referred interlocutory apr rlic,ttion, the petitioners/d( 'encants fired simirar apprications ser,:kirrg reave to file docume,ntl. l-.towever, as per the recor(l recr: ,.,ed, it iS very clear that th(' s rit was at the initiar stage and the r ,rbove referred interlor:r-rlorv p{)litation ivas filed in an injunction petitic,n.

¶51

Orcler Vl II R.lle 1 G)C^P. C.^reads as follows 14. Duty )f defenda t to produce documents upon whi<h relie,f is elted upon by htm(1) !Jh rri, tl .le1i,;r'lanl ,t:.rs ir : ,teien,., upon a doCUr.tent cr r:l es Upon : r^f.! r.Lr:r'^{.. ..,} ,-: rr,.- ,r suppcrl of hls JeFerce or:lainrfor : .:- _t I document I a 1tst, nd ;hall llrr^., r r', I ' 1" '"' ''" , .. i ..-i,,i i r .r-:::r' ,r" "1 -triellr.l,lt :i r:l .r .opy rs presented )y thereoF, o be'ill,l h rr ar(l r,lith iheSha,l, at (2) ' rr'^. tlr-- possesslor or pover of the ai( Ier ::1,1. , n r,hrJse pos,essron I Oow(lr rt - (3) ^ _ : a-..^,,t ro Court by lte defenja tt urder th ! r a 1.,:1 : r.i .at. r thOut the leavc of [h,j (.OUrt be r. i I ' .it^',,a ,...rd nq of the surt.

¶52

Wtr :r ever t.he party intend to file dc<:r.rmr:nts, they have to subst. rt ate th. case as to how they are e..:ifle to fire the documentr; anr: r"h / they courcJ not fire the documenrs v/hire riring the writren sta:trrent. Ho!vevcr, that stage would ari;e ()nly when the Courl frantl s:;ues. gut n a case on hand, isst.es were not framed rnl th,. ( orrrt b:l,tw ought to have allowed tie petitioner to file tlrc dl:(1 r,.nts. As per the description qiven, I.he proposed

¶53

6 SSRN,] C R P No 1927 of 2021

¶54

documents are certified copies of^{the plaint, written statement,} depositions and the^{Encumbrancecertificates.In the above} referred Judgment, the Hon'ble^{ApexCourt was pleasedto observe} that the rules of^procedure are^{hand made of justice.Therefore,} even if there is some delay, the trial^{Court should have lmposed} some costs rather than to^{decline the productionof documents} itself. While allowing the application^filed by^{the party. the Hon'ble} Apex Court made an observation^{that the plaintiff therein shall} lead additional evidence, if any, before^{the defendants are given} an opportunity to lead^{evidence to rebut the evidence produced by} the plaintiff. In fact in^{thepresent case, the} petitio n e rsldefe nd a nts wanted to file the^{abovereferred} documents in an^{interlocutory application filed bythe} respondents/plaintiffs^{seeking temporary injunction.Therefore,the} order of the Court below^{is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the} Revision can be allowed.

¶55

In the result, the^{revision petitionis allowed'}

¶56

Consequently,^{Miscellaneousapplications if any, are closed'} No costs.

¶57

Sd/-P.NAGABHU SHAIVIB A ASSISTANT^{REG IST} R //TRUE^COPY//

¶58

SECTION FICER

¶59

To 1 rhe vr^{Additionaro'Sld:tlJflfli:it}/:*?:Bati:l'Mahabubabad District} Z. One^{CC to Sri Kiran Pala} 5 6;; cc^{io s,i Karra Srinivas' Advocate [OPUC]} 4. Two^{CD CoPies}

HIGH COURT

DATED:20/03/2023

ORDER

CRP.No.1927 of 20i¹

==':
(t1
- (.L -:-iAl 6 O..
J
Co [ 1 il,Y ISZJ ) l!i
'/
.',: _,/
\ :?