Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 909 (AP)

Jai Siha v. Deewan Ranveer Singh

2013-10-22

A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

body2013
Judgment : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against order dated 18.07.2011 in I.A.No.4083 of 2010 in O.S.No.169 of 2006, passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the Court below dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) read with Section 151 CPC requesting to grant leave to the revision petitioner/first defendant to file the petition listed documents and receive the same on file by condoning the delay in filing the same. 2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the Civil Revision Petition are as follows: The revision petitioner filed I.A.No.4083 of 2010 in O.S.No.169 of 2006 stating that some documents about which reference was made in the written statement could not be filed and they are most important documents connected with the main suit. Hence, he prayed to receive the following documents: 1) Plan of the suit schedule property which is obtained from Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad in the name of Smt. Krishna Bai, dated 31.03.1978 vide permit number 54/28 file number 468/1/4/3/77. 2) Will dated 10.06.1994 written by Smt. Krishna Bai, W/o. late B. Deewan Singh who is the mother of plaintiff and defendants. 3) Public notice through her advocate stating that Smt. Krishna Bai is the absolute owner of the House in Deccan Chronicle Newspaper dated 06.08.1994. 4) Another public notice stating that notifying absolute rights of the suit schedule property of the defendants mother dated 10.10.1995 through her advocate. 5) Advocate notice to plaintiff on behalf of plaintiff’s mother dated 09.10.1995. 6) Advocate notice dated 29.04.2005 received in the name of defendants. 3. Counter affidavit was filed by the first respondent stating that the Will dated 10.06.1994 is a created document brought into existence to usurp the suit schedule property which belongs to the first respondent/plaintiff. The Will with the back date is created by the petitioner/first defendant and the same had not seen the light of the day since 1994. The mother of the first respondent/plaintiff and the petitioner was not sane in the year 1994 and, therefore, the question of her executing a Will much less the Will dated 10.06.1994 is false and baseless. The petitioner cannot as a matter of right file documents without disclosing valid reasons and sought for dismissal of the petition. 4. The mother of the first respondent/plaintiff and the petitioner was not sane in the year 1994 and, therefore, the question of her executing a Will much less the Will dated 10.06.1994 is false and baseless. The petitioner cannot as a matter of right file documents without disclosing valid reasons and sought for dismissal of the petition. 4. The Court below dismissed the above petition on 18.07.2011 holding that leave cannot be granted for receiving the documents as no reason is assigned by the revision petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application. Against the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that Order VIII 1A (3) does not provide for giving reasons for receiving the documents at a later stage. As such, the Court below should have received the above documents, since they are very crucial and important documents for deciding the rights of the revision petitioner. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent submits that no reasons were assigned for filing the documents at a belated stage. The Court below rightly dismissed the application stating that no justifiable reasons offered by the revision petitioner for allowing the application. He relied in Voruganti Narayana Rao v. Bodla Rammurthy and others ( 2011 (6) ALD 142 )in support of his contention. 7. In this case, the suit is coming up for evidence of first defendant and at that stage, the present application for receiving the documents is filed. The affidavit does not contain any reasons as to why the documents are to be filed at this belated stage. The Will deed is also said to have been executed in the year 1994 by the mother of the revision petitioner. When the documents are to be filed at belated stage, at least, some reasons have to be offered, but the affidavit filed before the Court below does not contain any reason. This Court in Voruganti Narayana Rao v. Bodla Rammurthy and others (supra), held as under: “7. Rules 1-A and 1-A(3) of Order VIII CPC, were substituted by Act 46 of 1999 with effect from 1.7.2002. The object with which those Rules were amended was to curb the phenomenal delays in the procedural aspects leading to procrastination of the proceedings before the civil Court. Rules 1-A and 1-A(3) of Order VIII CPC, were substituted by Act 46 of 1999 with effect from 1.7.2002. The object with which those Rules were amended was to curb the phenomenal delays in the procedural aspects leading to procrastination of the proceedings before the civil Court. The Parliament has thought it fit to stipulate time limits for the parties to file their defence and produce the documents along with the defence so that the cases can be disposed of without avoidable delays. This being the avowed object with which the above noted provisions are amended, Rule 1-A(3) of Order VIII CPC, which on a literal interpretation appears to vest unlimited discretion with the Court, requires to be interpreted so as to advance the intendment of the legislation. The Court before which the defendant produced the said documents after filing of the written statement, therefore, needs to be circumspect in examining whether proper reasons are assigned by the defendant for not producing the documents along with the written statement. Unless the reasons assigned by the defendant discloses sufficient cause for his failure to produce the documents within the time stipulated in Rule 1-A of Order VIII CPC, the Court shall not permit the defendant to file such documents later. Undoubtedly, unduly liberal approach in this regard would frustrate the purpose for which the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are amended. This Court in Ravi Satish’s case (supra), held that grant of leave by the Court is not for the mere asking nor is the Court a mere Post-Office to receive documents even in the absence of any reasons furnished for failure to file the said documents along with the written statement.” The object with which Rules 1-A(3) of Order VIII CPC were substituted by Act 46 of 1999 with effect from 01.07.2002 to avoid unnecessary delays in the trial. As such, the Court below by relying upon the Judgment of this Court, dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner.8. As such, the Court below by relying upon the Judgment of this Court, dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner.8. Therefore, in view of the principle laid down by this Court in the above judgment and also Judgment relied on by trial Court and also in view of the fact that no reasons were assigned by the revision petitioner for receiving the documents at belated stage, I do not find any error or infirmity in the order passed by the Court below to be interfered with by exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed.