Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 867 (AP)

B. Ramasubba Reddy v. Y. Ramakrishna Reddy

2008-10-13

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2008
ORDER These three revisions arise out of three separate orders passed by the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. 2. Defendants 1 and 2 are the petitioners in all the revisions. The 151 respondent is the pI.A.intiff and 2nd respondent is defendant No.3. 3. The 151 respondent filed the suit, with a prayer to set aide the sale deeds executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the petitioners. The trial of the suit commenced and the evidence was closed. At that stage, the 15t respondent filed three applications; I.A.No.1274 of 2007 was filed under Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. with a prayer to recall P.W.1, for the purpose of marking certain documents, I.A.No.1275 of 2007 was filed with a prayer to condone the deI.A.y in filing the documents under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C., and I.A.No.1292 of 2007 was filed with a prayer to reopen the evidence, for the purpose of marking certain documents. Through separate orders, dated 22.01.2008, the trial Court allowed I.A.Nos.1275 and 1292 of 2007. C.R.P.Nos.2455 and 2590 of 2008 are filed against the said orders. On the next day, i.e., 23.01.2008, the trial Court allowed I.A.No.1274 of 2008. C.R.P.No.983 of 2008 arises out of it. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court did not assign any reasons as to the relevancy or admissibility of the documents, much less, about the condonation of deI.A.y. He contends that the 151 respondent did not mention any reason for such a beI.A.ted presentation of the documents nor did the trial Court take into account, the grounds urged by the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the 151 respondent submits that the applications filed by his client are almost routine, in nature. He contends that though the documents were presented along with the pI.A.int, in the form of xerox copies, the certified copies could not be filed during the trial, since they were mispI.A.ced. He further contends that the orders passed by the trial Court mostly reflect the procedural steps, which do not warrant detailed reasoning. 6. With the conclusion of evidence, valuable rights accrue to the respective parties. The evidence once closed, can be reopened, only when proper grounds are established. The 151 respondent filed the three applications, referred to above, with an object of making certain documents as part of record. 6. With the conclusion of evidence, valuable rights accrue to the respective parties. The evidence once closed, can be reopened, only when proper grounds are established. The 151 respondent filed the three applications, referred to above, with an object of making certain documents as part of record. Whether it is for condonation of deI.A.y in filing the documents or for reopening of evidence, the concerned party is under obligation to assign satisfactory reasons. The Court is also under obligation to take into account, the reasons pleaded by the petitioner in the I.A. and the resistance offered by the respondent to that application. It is not necessary that on every application, a detailed order running into several pages be passed. At the same time, the Court cannot reduce the exercise of disposal of applications to an empty formality. Once respective stands of the parties are reflected in the affidavit and counter, they are required to be noted at least in a precise form. Howsoever accurate, the nature of disposal may be, a cryptic order does not subserve the purpose. 7. In the instant case, I.A..No.1275 of 2007 was allowed through one line order, which reads "Counter filed. Heard both sides. Petition is allowed subject to proof of necessity'. The order in I.A.. NO.1292 of 2007 is I.A.rger just by one more line. I.A..No.1274 of 2007 was, no doubt, disposed of through a discussion running into a paragraph. Here again, reference was just made to a precedent, without mentioning the facts or pleas raised by the' parties. Further, it is an order consequential to those in the other two applications. This Court is of the view that the trial Court has to bestow little more attention. 8. The Civil Revision Petitions are, accordingly, allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The trial Court is directed to pass appropriate individual orders or a common order in I.A.Nos.1274, 1285 and 1292 of 2007, duly assigning reasons, in support of its conclusions. There shall be no order as to costs.