Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 235 (AP)

M. R. Anjaneyulu v. R. Subrahmanyam Achary

2012-03-05

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2012
Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 17-10-2011, in IA.No.829 of 2011 in OS.No.139 of 2007, on the file of the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Palamaner, Chittoor District. The respondent filed the above-mentioned suit for recovery of a certain amount. The petitioner, who is defendant in the said suit, filed written statement. Thereafter, when the case was coming up for the cross-examination of the respondent/plaintiff, the petitioner filed the above-mentioned IA for permitting him to file registered sale deed, dated 26-12-1994, and a registered notice. The said application was dismissed by the lower Court on the sole ground that the petitioner has not come forth with proper reasons for permitting him to file the proposed documents. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition. Even though notice was served on the respondent, there is no representation for him at the hearing. In his affidavit, the petitioner has stated that the suit schedule property originally belonged to and was in possession and enjoyment of one Smt.Subbamma, W/o late N.R.Sreenivasulu, and her son N.S.Sreeramulu; that the said Subbamma and her son sold the suit schedule property to the petitioner under registered sale deed, dated 26-12-1994, and; that due to oversight, the said document could not be filed earlier. It was also stated that the petitioner has received notice from the Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff without the advocate’s signature and that both these documents are essential for effectively defending the suit. Under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’), a document, which ought to be produced in the Court by the defendant, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence. Clause (3) of Order VIII Rule 1A CPC was incorporated by Act 22 of 2002 with a view to discourage the practice of the parties filing documents at a belated stage of the proceedings. The law is well settled that procedure is handmaid of justice. While procedural laws need to be adhered to in order to avoid long delays in disposal of the cases, at the same time, the Courts will have to make a delicate balance between strict adherence to these procedural laws and the substantial justice that needs to be ensured for the parties. While procedural laws need to be adhered to in order to avoid long delays in disposal of the cases, at the same time, the Courts will have to make a delicate balance between strict adherence to these procedural laws and the substantial justice that needs to be ensured for the parties. In the anxiety to curb delays, stopping the parties from adducing relevant evidence would lead to failure of justice. However, fair amount of discretion is vested by Order VIII Rule 1A (3) CPC in the Courts to permit filing the documents. No hard and fast principles can be laid down for the Courts as to how this discretion has to be exercised. While exercising such discretion, the Courts will have to consider relevant aspects such as the conduct of the parties, the nature of the documents that are sought to be filed and whether by permitting filing such documents, the same will help the Court to adjudicate the suit in a more effective manner etc. The Court should also consider the stage at which the documents are sought to be filed. In the present case, even though the reason put forth by the petitioner for the delay in filing the proposed documents is vague, one of those documents being a registered sale deed, it may certainly have a bearing on his defence in the suit. Moreover, those documents were sought to be produced before the commencement of the cross-examination of the respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, the respondent will certainly have an opportunity of explaining the nature of those documents if they are put to him in the cross-examination. Having regard to these circumstances, the lower Court ought to have permitted the petitioner to produce the two documents in question. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and Order, dated 17-10-2011, in IA.No.829 of 2011 in OS.No.139 of 2007, on the file of the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Palamaner, Chittoor District, is set aside. Consequently, IA.No.829 of 2011 stands allowed. As a sequel, CRPMP.No.7992 of 2011 is disposed of.