Tallapalli Lakshmi Kumari , Lakshmi Devi v. Telanakula Anantha Venkata Narasimham

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3923 of 2016 ORDER:

The 1st defendant in a suit for specific performance, whose application under Order VIII Rule 14A of the Code was dismissed by the trial Court, has come up with the above revision petition. Heard Mr. Sai Gangadhar Chamarty learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel takes notice for the 1st respondent/plaintiff.

The suit was filed by the 1st respondent on the basis of an agreement of sale dated 12.09.2012. The execution of the agreement was denied by the defendants. The defendants claimed in their written statement that one Tallapalli Bala Rangaiah, the husband of the 1st defendant and the father of defendants 2 to 4, died all of a sudden on 14.04.2012; that the suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff, after setting up his own staff by name Srinivasa Rao and Dasari Satyanarayana to file two suits against the defendants and that it was an attempt for grabbing the property belonging to the defendants.

After the trial commenced, the 1st defendant filed an application in I.A.No.229 of 2016 for filing the certified copies of the documents as well as proceedings in the other suits about which a mention was made in the written statement. Since these documents were not filed along with the written statement and holding that these documents have no relevance to the case on hand the trial Court dismissed the application. Therefore the defendants are before me.

The fact remains that the documents sought to be filed by

the defendants, are already found mentioned in the written statement. Therefore, except the fact that they were not filed at the earliest point of time, no other objection can be put against the petitioner.

Unfortunately the trial Court went into the question of relevancy of these documents, even before the documents are sought to be marked in evidence. The question of admissibility, proof and relevancy would arise only at the time when the parties seek to mark the documents as exhibits. The trial Court has put the cart before the horse. Therefore, the revision deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The questions relating to the admissibility of these documents, proof as well as relevancy, can be gone into by the trial Court at the time when the revision petitioner seeks to mark them in evidence. At that time, it is open to the 1st respondent/plaintiff to raise all the objections relating to admissibility, proof and relevancy. Since the suit is of the year 2012, the trial Court shall dispose it of within a period of three months. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN 29th August, 2016 Js.