Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 303 (AP)

Narai Reddy v. Rami Reddy Gopaiah

2002-02-25

DUBAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM

body2002
DUBAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM, J. ( 1 ) PLAINTIFFS in O. S. No. 10/95 on the file of senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool filed this revision petition. ( 2 ) DURING the evidence of D. W. 3, the witness produced two documents, which were marked as Exs. X-1 and X-2 by the trial court. The order of the trial court in marking those two documents as Exs. X-1 and X-2, is challenged in the present revision petition. The suit is filed for declaration etc. , relating to immovable property and the defendants are contesting the suit. On the application filed by the defendants, the court issued summons to the witnesses D. Ws. 2 and 3 to appear before the court and give evidence while giving evidence, the witness D. W. 3 produced two documents. As per the recitals in those documents, the parties to the suit executed two separate agreements in favour of the village eiders named in the documents to settle the dispute between the parties. Those agreements, which can be merely called as arbitration agreements, are executed by the parties after the suit in O. S. No. 10/95 was filed by plaintiffs and before the defendants filed the written statement. ( 3 ) IT is the contention of the plaintiffs-revision petitioners that in the written statement there is no whisper about any settlement and equally there is no whisper about the two documents Exs. X-1 and X-2 and therefore, they are not relevant documents. ( 4 ) THE defendant filed LA. No. 276/2001 requesting the trial court to summon the present witnesses D. Ws. 2 and 3. Notice of that petition was served on the plaintiff. In the affidavit it is clearly stated that D. Ws. 2 and 3 settled the matter long back in the village between the defendant and plaintiffs as elderly persons. It is further stated in the affidavit that those persons are not coming to the court unless summons are issued to them. The order passed by the trial court indicates that counter was not filed and the said petition was allowed oh payment of costs of Rs. 50/- to the plaintiffs. Therefore, even though there is no reference to existence of the two documents Exs. The order passed by the trial court indicates that counter was not filed and the said petition was allowed oh payment of costs of Rs. 50/- to the plaintiffs. Therefore, even though there is no reference to existence of the two documents Exs. X-1 and x-2, before the witnesses were actually summoned by the court, the defendants in i. A. No. 276/2001 clearly disclosed that those witnesses are being summoned to give evidence about the attempts made by them to settle the disputes between the parties. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioners drew the attention of this court to the provisions contained under Order 16 rules 1, 5, 6 and 7 of C. P. C. It is her contention that the witness can be summoned either to give evidence or to produce documents or for both the purposes. It is her contention that as the witnesses were not summoned to produce the documents concerned, the trial court is not entitled to receive those documents and mark them as Exs. X-1 and X-2. ( 6 ) I do not find any substance in that contention in view of the facts of the present case. When a person comes to the court to give evidence and when that person knows that his oral evidence can be supported or corroborated by documents already in his possession, in my considered opinion, even if the court did not summon the documents concerned, witness is at liberty to produce the documents in court to corroborate the oral evidence he is going to give before the court. Production of relevant documents by the witness in his custody will go a long way to establish his credibility. Non-production of relevant documents in his custody will make his oral testimony useless. Therefore, there is no substance in the present revision petition. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioners however, contended that a petition under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC is not filed to obtain the orders of the court to receive the documents. After settlement of the issues the documents are not produced by any of the parties to the suit. The witnesses need not file a petition under order 13 Rule 2 CPC requesting the court to receive the documents. ( 8 ) RELIANCE was placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Mandalal v. Shyamlal. After settlement of the issues the documents are not produced by any of the parties to the suit. The witnesses need not file a petition under order 13 Rule 2 CPC requesting the court to receive the documents. ( 8 ) RELIANCE was placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Mandalal v. Shyamlal. Certain documents were not produced before the court at the relevant time before the settlement of the issues and till plaintiffs evidence was closed. Then the defendants filed a petition under Order 13 rule 2 C. P. C. requesting the trial court to receive those documents. The trial court rejected those applications. The High Court upheld the order of the trial court. The supreme Court held that it cannot be said that the trial court has acted with material irregularities in exercise of its jurisdiction in rejecting the applications filed by the appellant and that the order if allowed would occasion to failure of justice. As already noticed, witness need not file a petition under Order 13 Rule 2 C. P. C. , before producing the documents in his possession. I have already pointed out that the witness is at liberty to produce the documents in support of oral evidence being given by him. ( 9 ) ANOTHER decision relied upon is ajudgment of Madras High Court reported in chinnaswami v. Pichai Maricar. In that case a witness was called to give evidence. His evidence disclosed that he was in possession of certain account books. The court directed him to produce those accounts on the next date. The said witness did not produce the document before the court on the next day. He did not appear before court. Thereupon the court imposed a fine of Rs. 50/- on the said-witness. The said witness challenged the order of the trial court imposing fine on him. The High Court considered the provisions under Order 16 rule 10 of CPC and held that the court has no power to impose fine on a witness if the witness fails to produce the document. Therefore, this decision has also no relevancy or application to the facts of the present case. ( 10 ) NO prejudice is caused to the revision petitioners by the order of the trial court marking the documents Exs. Therefore, this decision has also no relevancy or application to the facts of the present case. ( 10 ) NO prejudice is caused to the revision petitioners by the order of the trial court marking the documents Exs. X-1 and X-2 in spite of the fact that the plaintiffs are not informed before hand that the witnesses are going to produce those documents. D. W. 2 did not produce those -documents. However, the defendants did not choose to cross-examine him. The cross-examination of D. W. 3 who produced the documents exs. X-1 and X-2 was also deferred. Therefore, the plaintiffs are having sufficient opportunity to cross-examine D. Ws. 2 and 3 effectively as they had taken adjournment to cross-examine D. Ws. 2 and 3 later. ( 11 ) IN view of these circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the court. ( 12 ) IN the result the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.