Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 696 (AP)

Bolla Ajay Babu v. Nalla Manikyamma

2009-10-09

R.SUBHASH REDDY

body2009
COMMON ORDER :- (CRP Nos.3523 and 4356 of 2009 are filed against the order dated 23.7.2009 passed in IA Nos.808 and 809 of 2009 respectively in OS No.285 of 2002 by the learned II-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. 2. Since these two revision petitions arise out of the same suit, against the orders passed in two interlocutory applications, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the suit, which is filed seeking perpetual injunction. The suit is coming up for further evidence on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff. At that stage, the petitioner filed two interlocutory applications in IA Nos.808 and 809 of 2009. IA No.808 of 2009 was filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC seeking leave of the Court to receive some additional documents in evidence and IA No.809 of 2009 was filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to reopen the case and recall PW 1 for the purpose of marking the documents, which are sought to be received in IA No.808 of 2009. The Court below, by the impugned orders, dismissed both the applications. In the order passed in LA.808 of 2009, the Court below by recording a finding that the documents filed by the petitioner are not obtained by him and that there is no reference in the pleadings about the documents, dismissed the said application. Consequently, IA No.809 of 2009 was also dismissed. 4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was no reason for rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner and that merely because the documents, which are sought to be received as additional evidence by granting leave, were not obtained by the petitioner, it is no ground to reject the applications. It is submitted that inasmuch as the documents are certified copies, the Court below ought to have granted leave in view of the provision under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment in Omprakash Gupta and others v. Government of A.P. and others, 2005 (2) ALD (NOC 98). 5. It is submitted that inasmuch as the documents are certified copies, the Court below ought to have granted leave in view of the provision under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment in Omprakash Gupta and others v. Government of A.P. and others, 2005 (2) ALD (NOC 98). 5. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that there is no reference to these documents in the plaint at all and that in the absence of any such reference, the petitioner cannot seek leave, at the belated stage, so as to produce the said documents. 6. I have perused the copy of the impugned order passed by the Court below in IA No.808 of 2009. The Court below rejected the said application on two grounds that (i) the certified copies of the documents were not obtained by the petitioner and that they were obtained by a third party and (ii) there is no reference to the documents in the pleadings, which are sought to be received. So far as ground No.1 is concerned, it is not necessary that the petitioner should only obtain the certified copies of the documents and iris no ground at all to reject the application, but the Court below was right in holding that the documents cannot be received in evidence by granting leave in the absence of any reference about the same in the pleadings. This Court is also of the opinion that in the absence of any reference to the documents, which are sought to be received, in the pleadings, the petitioner cannot seek leave of the Court to receive such documents, at the belated stage, when the suit is coming up for further evidence on the side of the plaintiff. Further the judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is also of no help to the petitioner as in the said judgment, the documents, which were sought to be marked, were referred to in the plaint. In the said judgment, it was held that certified copies can be received when they are referred to in the plaint and their authenticity is not disputed. In the said judgment, it was held that certified copies can be received when they are referred to in the plaint and their authenticity is not disputed. In any event, having regard to the findings recorded by the Court below for rejection of the applications, I do not find any illegality in the orders impugned so as to interfere with the same in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. The civil revision petitions are devoid of merits and are, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.