Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 99 (AP)

Ravi Satish v. Edala Durga Prasad

2009-02-24

RAMESH RANGANATHAN

body2009
ORDER The question, which arises for consideration in all these five revision petitions, is whether the Court below is required, under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, to receive documents despite absence of cause being shown by the applicant. 2. It would suffice, for the purpose of disposal of these five revision petitions, if the facts in C.R.P. No. 712 of 2009 are noted. The respondent herein filed O.S. No. 687 of 2004 to set aside cancellation of the sale deed executed earlier. The petitioner herein i.e., the defendant in the suit, filed I.A.No. 1828 of 2008 requesting the Court below to receive certain documents which he had failed to file along with his written statement. The respondent herein opposed such a request contending that the petitioner herein had not given any cogent reasons for not filing the documents, which are filed now, at the appropriate stage and, therefore, the said application was not maintainable. 3. The Court below, in its order dated 17-11-2008, observed that the petitioner had not stated any reasons in his affidavit for not filing the documents, which he intended to file along with this application, at the time when he filed the written statement and that the affidavit was silent as to in whose possession the documents were at the time when the written statement was filed. The Court below noted that the documents filed by the petitioner were not intended for the purpose of refreshing his memory nor for cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, that the documents filed by the petitioner consisted of the final reminder notice dated 22-08-2003, office copy of caveat petition dated 03-12-2003, acknowledgement card dated 08-12-2003 etc., as intimation of cancellation of the sale deed dated 01-11-2003, and certified copy of the judgment in 0.S.No.559 of 2002 obtained on 04-07-2003. The Court below observed that all the documents related to the period prior to filing of the suit, which was filed on 29-12-2004 and, since the petitioner (defendant No.1) had failed to mention any reasons for withholding those documents from being filed along with his written statement and, considering that the respondent/plaintiff had lost the opportunity to file his rejoinder in respect of the documents relied upon by the petitioner, the petitioner was not entitled to file documents at that stage. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. 4. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. 4. Sri K. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, does not dispute the fact that the affidavit, filed in support of the I.A., does not disclose any reason for failure on the part of the petitioner/defendant to file the said documents along with his written statement. It is, however, contended that, even in the absence of any reasons being stated in the affidavit, the Court is duty bound to consider as to whether the documents should be received or not, that a liberal view had to be taken, that the documents should be received, more particularly, as receipt of documents did not amount to its being admitted to proof, that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff on mere receipt of the documents, as he would still have an opportunity to agitate on the question of admissibility and proof of such documents, that failure on the part of the Court below to permit the documents to be received adversely affected the rights of the petitioner/defendant and that this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should interfere. Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on K.V. Subramanyam Vs. K. Madhavi ( 1999(6) ALT 47 (D.B.)), Dasuputruni Suryanarayana v. Dasuputruni Adinarayana(2005 (3) AL T 87 (D.B.)) and Dugaputi Sudhakar Reddy Vs. Avulapati Shankar Reddy( 2005 (2) ALT 417 ). 5. Sri G. Vijaya Babu, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, on the other hand, would submit that receipt of documents, under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, was not automatic, that the amendment to the Code in 2002 placed restrictions on receipt of documents by the Court, that a discretion was conferred on the Court below either to receive or refuse to receive the documents, when such documents were not filed along with the written statement and, since the petitioner herein had not given any reasons as to why the said documents could not be filed earlier, the Court below was justified in refusing to exercise its discretion in the petitioner's favour. Learned counsel would submit that, since the order of the Court below did not suffer from any jurisdictional error nor could such exercise of discretion be considered to be patently illegal, no interference was called for by this Court in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel would submit that, since the order of the Court below did not suffer from any jurisdictional error nor could such exercise of discretion be considered to be patently illegal, no interference was called for by this Court in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel would rely on Sirugudi Adinarayana v. Bodla Mariamma and Sri Rajah R.V.G.K. Ranga Rao v. Nizams Sugars Ltd., Latchayyapeta. 6. Under Order VIII Rule1-A(3) CPC, a document, which ought to be produced before the Court by the defendant under Rule 1, but is not so produced shall not, without leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. Subrule (3) was inserted by Act 22 of 2002 with effect from 01-07-2002. As such, reliance placed by the petitioner herein on the Division Bench judgment in K. V. Subramanyam (1 supra), rendered prior to the amendment aforementioned, is of no avail. 7. In Dugaputi Sudhakar Reddy (3 supra), this Court held that receipt of documents under sub-rule (3) of Rule 1-A Order VIII was subject to the satisfaction of the Court, that the reasons given must be satisfactory, that the leave of the Court shall not be for the mere asking, that such reason must be justifiable and prima facie believable and also be capable of rendering justice by deciding all the issues, particularly in a suit for partition. In Dugaputi Sudhakar Reddy (3 supra), the trial Court had exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant and had allowed the application filed to receive the documents. This Court, in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction, had chosen not to interfere with exercise of such discretion. As observed by this Court, in Dugaputi Sudhakar Reddy (3 supra), the trial Court is not required to receive the documents for the mere asking and it is on when sufficient cause is shown for failure on the part of the applicant in not filing the said documents along with written statement, would the Court below be justified, that too for reasons be recorded in writing, in exercising its discretion to receive documents. 8. Dasuputruni Suryanarayana (2 supra), was again a case where the Court below had exercised its discretion to permit receipt of the documents filed after the written statement was filed earlier. 8. Dasuputruni Suryanarayana (2 supra), was again a case where the Court below had exercised its discretion to permit receipt of the documents filed after the written statement was filed earlier. The Division Bench of this Court was called upon to examine whether the possessory agreement was required to be charged as a sale deed, whether it required registration and whether the application filed to receive documents was belated and was filed with a view to protract the litigation. It is in this context that the Division Bench observed that the trial Court had merely allowed the application to receive the documents, that the question as to whether the document was a sale agreement or a possessory agreement was not required to be gone into at that stage and that the learned Judge did not commit any error, much less a jurisdictional error, in allowing the application to receive the documents into Court. 9. In Sirugudi Adinarayana (4 supra), the Court below found good cause to have been shown and, accordingly, granted leave to the petitioner to file those documents but some of the documents were not received on the ground that they were not admissible in evidence. It is in this context that this Court observed that the question of admissibility and relevancy of the documents can be gone into by the Court not at the stage of granting leave to the defendant to produce the documents but at the stage of hearing of the suit, which otherwise were required to be filed into Court along with the written statement and that the Court, at that stage, could not go into the admissibility and relevancy of the document. It is in this context that this Court interfered with the order of the Court below and directed it to receive the documents in question. 10. In Nizams Sugars Ltd., (5 supra), this Court held that in certain maters there could be deliberate negligence and lack of bona fides on the part of the parties in producing the documents at a belated stage, and to have a proper check, and also to safeguard against misuse, the amending provisions had been introduced. 10. In Nizams Sugars Ltd., (5 supra), this Court held that in certain maters there could be deliberate negligence and lack of bona fides on the part of the parties in producing the documents at a belated stage, and to have a proper check, and also to safeguard against misuse, the amending provisions had been introduced. This Court observed that merely on the ground of laches there could not be shutting of evidence provided the Court was satisfied that there were some reasons for non-production of the documents as specified and contemplated by the provisions of the Code and, if reasons were given, normally the Court may have to lean in favour of receiving the documents and that the parties should be permitted to let in all possible evidence which are relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the matters in controversy before the Court. This Court found fault with the view taken by the Court below that a liberal view could not be taken for granting relief. 11 . Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1-A of Order VIII permits the documents to be received only on leave being granted by the Court. Grant of leave is not for the mere asking, nor is the Court a mere Post-Office to receive documents even in the absence of any reasons being furnished for failure to file the said documents along with the written statement. Admittedly, in the case on hand, no reasons whatsoever have been furnished by the petitioner, let alone adequate cause been shown as to why the documents, which were the subject matter of the application, could not be filed earlier along with the written statement. Having chosen not to give any reasons, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the Court below should have received the documents, since the petitioner's right could be adversely affected for failure on its part to receive the documents. While it is no doubt true that admissibility and proof of documents are matters which ought not to be gone into at the time of receipt of documents, the fact, however, remains that the leave sought for can only be granted on adequate reasons being furnished justifying failure on the part of the applicant in not filing the documents along with the written statement earlier. The contention that no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the respondent/plaintiff has been rejected by the Court below on the ground that their right to file rejoinder based on the said document had been denied. The Court below has not committed any jurisdictional error nor has its order resulted in such manifest injustice as to necessitate interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I see no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Court below. 12. All the revision petitions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed.