Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 643 (AP)

Bathala Guravaiah v. B. Pitchaiah

2005-07-19

P.S.NARAYANA

body2005
( 1 ) HEARD Sri Ramesh, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner and sri L. J. Veera Reddy, the learned counsel representing the respondents. ( 2 ) SRI Ramesh, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner had brought it to the notice of this Court that on the self same day i. e. on 21-2-2005, in the same application in I. A. No. 4 of 2004 in a. S. No. 7 of 2002, the learned Additional senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, rajampet at Badvel, made two orders and hence, the revision petitioner was constrained to file two C. R. Ps. The learned counsel also would point out that the learned Judge of this court made an order in C. R. P. No. 1023 of 2005, dated 25-4-2005, wherein the impugned order was set aside and the appellate Court was directed to consider the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity cpc ) at the time of disposal of the appeal as to the relevancy of documents on merits and pass appropriate orders. In the light of the same, the learned counsel would maintain that the present C. R. P. also may have to be allowed. ( 3 ) SRI L. J. Veera Reddy, the learned counsel representing the respondents, would maintain that it is peculiar that on the selfsame day, the learned Judge appeared to have made two orders in an application filed in I. A. No. 4 of 2004 in A. S. No. 7 of 2002, under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC for reception of documents as additional evidence. The learned counsel also made an attempt to show that none of the ingredients of Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, in fact, are satisfied and even otherwise the learned counsel would maintain that in the light of the order already passed, no further orders need be passed in the present C. R. P. ( 4 ) HEARD both the counsel. ( 5 ) HERE is a novel situation where on an application filed under Order 41 Rule. 27 of the CPC for reception of additional evidence in l. A. No. 4 of 2004 in A. S. No. 7 of 2002 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast track Court, Rajampet at Badvel, two orders were made. ( 5 ) HERE is a novel situation where on an application filed under Order 41 Rule. 27 of the CPC for reception of additional evidence in l. A. No. 4 of 2004 in A. S. No. 7 of 2002 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast track Court, Rajampet at Badvel, two orders were made. On careful comparison and scrutiny of the orders, the contentions and the reasons recorded also appear to be slightly different. At para -7 of the order, it was observed:"considered the arguments of both sides. Perused the entire record. The 1st document proposed to be filed by the petitioner is copy of 10 (1) Account for Fasli 1405. As seen from the back side of the said document, it disclosed that the said document was obtained on 17-3-1997. The Judgment in the main suit was pronounced on 14-2-2002. The petitioner did not offer any explanation for not filing the said document, which was obtained by him in the year 1997 before the trial court. Therefore, there is no proper explanation on the part of the petitioner, for filing the document before the appellate Court. The second document is the copy of the proceedings of the R. D. O. Rajampet, dated 10-7-2003 and the third document is the proceedings issued by the M. R. O. , b. Mattam, dated 16-9-2003. Therefore, the said two documents are pertaining subsequent to the date of filing of the main suit as the main suit is filed in the year of 1997. Further more the main suit is filed for the grant of permanent injunction. Hence, these two documents are not relevant for deciding the controversy on one way or other, in view of the proceedings pending before the appellate authority. " ( 6 ) IN para -8 of another order made on the self-same day, it was observed:"the petitioner wants to file the deed of title pass book and pattadar pass book in the name of Bathala Guravaiah as additional evidence on his side. The said pass books in the 1st page containing the date of 25-2-2000 and at the 5th page containing the endorsement that as per the orders passed by the R. D. O. , Rajampet, in r. D. O s Rc/rtc/2071/97 dated 10-7-2003 the pass books are written. The said pass books in the 1st page containing the date of 25-2-2000 and at the 5th page containing the endorsement that as per the orders passed by the R. D. O. , Rajampet, in r. D. O s Rc/rtc/2071/97 dated 10-7-2003 the pass books are written. They contain the date as 24-4-2004 underneath the signature of the M. R. O. Therefore, the entities (sic. entries) mentioned in pages 4 and 5 of the said two books are all subsequent to the date of filing of the main suit and are all made basing upon the proceedings issued by the R. D. O. , As per the contentions and as per the documents filed along with the counter, the respondents preferred revision before the Joint Collector, Cuddapah, as against the proceedings issued by the r. D. O. , Rajampet. Further more as seen from the copy of the order passed by the Hon ble High Court of A. P. , dated 20-7-2004, his lordship clearly mentioned about the pendency of revision before the Joint Collector, cuddapah, and his Lordship, by giving certain directions, was pleased to dispose off the writ petition at the stage of admission. Therefore, there is much controversy pending before the competent authority in respect of the proposed documents to be received as additional evidence on behalf of the petitioner. That controversy cannot be determined in this present appeal and further as the relevant entries, which have mentioned above are all subsequent to the filing of the main suit. The said documents are not material documents to decide the controversy in one way or other. " ( 7 ) IT is not known as to whether the two orders were made in the same application on the self-same day by the learned Judge by over-sight or otherwise. Be that as it may, the learned Judge of this Court by order dated 25-4-2005 in C. R. P. No. 1023 of 2005, made the following order:"admittedly, the documents that are issued subsequent to the filing of the appeal relate to the same disputed property. Therefore, it could not be said that the documents are not at all relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue in dispute. Therefore, it could not be said that the documents are not at all relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue in dispute. As admittedly the documents were issued in favour of the petitioner- appellant during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant is not expected to produce such documents prior to the filing of the appeal or during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, it would be proper to receive such documents, and thereafter at the time of deciding the appeal, the same may be considered, and it is not appropriate for the appellate Court to reject the same. In the above circumstances, the impugned order of the Court below is set aside and the appellate Court is directed to considerthe said application of the plaintiff-appellant at the time of disposal of the appeal as to the relevancy of the document on merits and pass appropriate orders. " ( 8 ) IT is no doubt true that when the impugned order is set aside in a Civil Revision petition by this Court, the appellate Court is bound to honour the same. It is also true that no separate order need be passed. But, however, in the light of the documents referred to and the reasons recorded, the revision petitioner thought of filing two C. R. Ps. , The courts are bound to observe the principle of comity. Passing of conflicting orders may have to be avoided. ( 9 ) INASMUCH as a co-ordinate Bench of this Court already had expressed the view as referred to supra, the present C. R. P. cannot be dismissed orthe relief cannot be negatived, even if, this Court is otherwise satisfied that the grounds under Order 41 Rule 27 of the cpc are not satisfied, as contended by sri L. J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel forthe respondents. ( 10 ) HENCE, in view of the same, the present c. R. P. is hereby allowed in terms of the order already made by yet another co-ordinate bench of this Court in C. R. P. No. 1023 of 2005. ( 11 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Civil Revision Petition is hereby allowed to the limited extent in the same terms as specified in C. R. P. No. 1023 of 2005. No costs.