Gousia Begum v. Nalla Malla Reddy

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2198 OF 2023 Petition under Article 227 ot the Constitution of lndia, against the Order dated 06-07-2023 passed in lA.No.449 of 2022 in OS.No.453/2022 on the ll Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal, Malkajgiri district at Malkajgiri. Between:

Gousia Begum, Wlo. Fazal Shariff, lndian Female, Aged about 70 years, Retired Em ployee, R/o. 1 -9 -297 I 3 Y rdy anagar Hyderabad. ... Petitioner/Responde nUPlaintiff AND Nalla Malla Reddy, S/o. Sai Reddy, lndian, Male Aged about 75 years, Occ. Business, PJo.4- 52, Vidyanagar, Kashwanisingaram Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, RR District.

...RespondenUPetitioner/Defendant Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. VINJAMURI RANGA BABU Counsel forthe Respondent: Sri. G. NARENDER REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER

.I'IIF] IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CIVIL RBVISION PETITION No. 2198 of 2023 ORDER:

l.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated.06.07.2023 in I.A. No. 449 of 2023 in O.S. No.453 of 2022 (Old. O.S.No. 538 of 2010) by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, at Malkajgiri, Medchal Matkajgiri District, as being illegal and contrary to settled principles of law.

2.

Heard Sri. V. V. Raghavan, leamed counsel appearing for Sri. V. Ranga Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. G. Narender Reddy leamed counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

3.

Thc pctitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit filed for declaration and consequential injunction. The respondent herein is the defendant in the suit.

4.

The suit was originally instituted in the year 2010. The respondent herein had filed his written statement before the Trial Court. At the stage of further evidence of the defendant, the Respondcnt herein fited an application under Order VllI Rule 1A

?

of the Code of Civil procedure, I90g (hereinatter refbr.rcd ro as ,the Code') with the following prayer:

"For all the rcasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is pra.,-ed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant leave to the petition€r/dclbndant iterein to file the Certified Copics of rhe I ) CC of Sale Deed bearing No. 4189 of t992, dt: 11.06.1992,2). Original Sate Deed bearing documenr No. 8125 o[2005, dt: l0.l1.2005, as per list, for the purposc of marking the same on behalf of the petitioner/defendant herein and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstanc€s of the case and in the interest ofjustice.', The petitioner herein filed her counter opposing the samc. 5.

The Court below a{ier hearing both sides, allowed the application observing that the documents sought to bc brought on record are the title documents of the respondent. Aggricved by the same the present revision is preferred.

6.

Leamed counsel for the petitioner contends that, the court below erroneously allowed the application.despite noticing that the instant application was filed at the fag-end of the trial; that sufficient cause was not shown by the respondent for not fiting the docurnents along with the written statem€nt; and thus granting leave to the petitioner to produce such documents is contrary to the

decision of this Court in Pallepati Narsaiuh and Ors, Vs. P. SaQtanarayona and Orst , 7.

Pct cttntra, learned counsel lor the respondent herein contends that the respondent was unable to produce the documents in question as they were not traceable; and that if the respondent is not pernritted to produce the sarne, he shall be put to grave prejudice.

8.

I have taken note oftheir respective contentions. 9.

[t is pcrtinent to note that sub rute ( I ) of Rule I A of Order VIII casts a duty on the defendant to produce the documents on the basis of which he places reliance at the time of filing the written statement. Sub-rule (2) thereof states that in case any document on which reliance is placed is not in the possession or power of the defendant, he shall speciff where such document lies, Sub-rule (3) provides that in a situation where the defendant seeks to produce a document which ought to have been filed at the time of filing I 201.9 (5) ALD 411

(\ written statement, the same shall not be allo\\,ed to be rcceived in evidence without the leave olthe Court

10. This Court in Pallepati Narsoioh's case (supra) dealing with an application filed to receive docurnents at a later stagc, hcld that the leave to file documents under Order Vll Rule lA(3) of the Code, 1908 can only be granted on fumishing sulficient cause justifring the failure of the defendant to file the said documents along with the written staterrent. The relevant observatious are as under:

12. In Ravi Satish v. Edala Durga Prasad, MAN U/AP/0716/2009 :2009 (3) ALT 236, this Court held as under:

"Sub-rule (3) of Rule [-A of Order VIll permits thc documcnls to bc received only on leave being granted by the Court- Grant of leave is not for the mere asking. nor is the Court a mere Dost-oflicc to rcceivc documents even in the absence of anv reasons bcins [urnished for failure to file the said documents alons with the written slatemenl. Admittedly, in the case on hand, no reasons whatsoever ltavc been fumished by the petitioner, let alone adequate cause becn shown as to why the documents, which could not be filed earlier along uitlr thc \,r/ritten statement. Having chosen not to givc any reasons, it is nol oPcn to the petitioner to contend that l.he Court below should have receivcd the documents, since the p€titioner's right could be adversely a[Iected for failure on its part to receive the documents.

While it is no doubt truc that admissibility and proof of docurn€flts are maners which ought not to be gone into at the time of receipt of documents, the fac(, ltowcvcr, remains that the lcave sought for can only bc granted on a(lcquate reasons being furnishcd justifying failure on the part of thc applicant in not filing the documents aloog with the tvritt€n statcmen( cadier." l3.Counsel for the respondents also relied on Voruganti Narayana lLao v. Bodla Rammurthy, MANU/AP/0468/201 I : 201 I (6) ALD 142 : 20t1 (6) ALT 299.

abscncc ol any reasons fumished for failure to file the said documents along with thc rvlitten statement. [t observed that only if part-v is prevented by circurnsranccs beyond his control to file the documents along with the written statcrne|t. tlrc Court may consider allowing the defendant to file documents subseqrrcrrtlr "

(entphasis supplied) was reiterated by this Court in I 1 . The atbresaid principle Choutlori Rojeshom Vs. Choudari Lingalaiah antl Ors2,

12. 'l'hc I'acts in the present case shall be examined in the light of the above stated position of law. It is pertinent to note that though the main suit was instituted in the year 2010, the instant application was only frled at the stage of cross examination of the respondent. Moreover, as rightly contended by the petitioner herein there is absolutely no whisper of the existence of these documents in the written statement filed by the respondent.

I 3. F'urther, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that the respondcnt herein had on an earlier occasion hled a similar application numbered as I.A.No. 150 of 2023 under Order VIII Rule lA of the Code, 1908, seeking to produce several documents. The documents now sought to be produced by the respondent formed a part of the earlier application. The Court below vide order 2019 (6) ALD 583

dated 21.04.2023 while parrly ailorving rhe saicl application rejected the request of the respondent to produce thc docurnents I which are sought to be produced undcr the prescnt applicatiorr. The impugned order categorically records that leavc tbr these documents was rejected as the respondent failed to show sulficient cause for delay.

14. After the Court below had rejected to grant leave in respect of the documents sought under the present application, the respondent herein had preferred the underlying application on 16.06.2023 on the ground that the said documcnrs \&,ore now located. The reasons asserted by the petitioner for his inability to fite the documents along with the written statement arc that, (i) Sale Deed bearing documenr No. 8125 of 2005 dated 10.11.2005 was traced out very recently and now the. samc was available with the respondent. (ii), Only a certified copy of the Sale Decd bcaring document No. 4389 of 1992 dated 11.06.1992 was availablc with the respondent, as the original sale deed was handed over to the third-party purchaser.

15. So I''ar as the first explanation is concemed this Court is of the vicrr that the sarne is extremely vague without elaborating as to horv thc lcspondent could manage to locate the original of a documcut clairned to have been missing for over a decade, irnrnediatc[1' within two months from the dismissal of the earlier application. Irurther, it is to be seen that as per the explanation offered the original of the second document was with a third-party purchascr. 'lhe said explanation falls short of constituting sufficient causc as it contradicts the respondent's version in I.A.No. 150 of 2023 that the said document was misplaced. A person having handed ovcr a document to subsequent purchasers cannot also be allorved to claim that the very same document was misplaced Thus, this Court is of the view that the underlying application was filed rvith an intention compensate the failures in the respondent's case

16. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the impugncd order is contrary to settled principles of law, and is thus liablc to bc sct-aside.

17' Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition is ailoricd. r-he order dated 06.07.2023 in I.A. No. 449 of 2023 in O.S \o.453 of 2022 (Old. O.S.No. 538 of 2010) by the II Additionat Scrrior Civil Judge, at Malkajgiri, Medchat Malkajgiri Disrricr is ser_asidc.

18. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pcndinu i{.anv shall stand closed. No orders as to cost.

SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// [,, SECTION OFFICER 1' The '

Additionar senior civir Judge, Medchar, Markajgiri district at Malkajgiri

2. One CC to Sri. VINJAMURI RANGA BABU, Advocate IOPUCI

3. One CC to Sri. G NARENDER REDDi:aor"*L-i6pucf

4. Two CD Copies PSR/JAK\yTo,

HIGH COURT DATED:2911212023 1t\g srAr$ ( q or) 3 0 ,!AN 202[ ?

a- * * D,::-;,':i,

ORDER

CRP.No.2198 of 2023 ALLOWING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

x(A ao'