Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1438 (AP)

N. Premaiah v. Narmala Deva Raj

2014-11-28

CHALLA KODANDA RAM

body2014
ORDER : Challa Kodanda Ram, J. 1. The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No. 170 of 2011 and are aggrieved by the order dated 07.08.2012, passed in I.A. No. 653 of 2012 in O.S. No. 170 of 2011, by the Principal Junior civil Judge, Nizamabad. 2. For convenience sake the parties are referred to as arrayed in the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. The brief averments are that the suit is filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for a mandatory injunction directing the revision petitioners-defendants, their family members, their agents etc., for the removal of entire illegal constructions made by the revision petitioners as shown in the red colour in the rough map enclosed with the plaint and also further to grant perpetual injunction restraining the revision petitioners etc., for making any sought of construction and interfere with the suit schedule property. 4. The subject matter of the suit is land in Sy. No. 108/A and 108/AA of Nadpally village shivar, Dichpally Mandal, Nizamabad District. There are rival claims between the parties, and the revision petitioners filed their written statement on 19.08.2011. Revision petitioners filed I.A. No. 653 of 2012 seeking to bring on record a total of 12 documents as set out in the affidavit filed along with the Interlocutory Application. The said Interlocutory Application was resisted by filing a detailed counter by the respondent-plaintiffs. In particular, it was specific case of the respondents-plaintiffs that the revision petitioners have not shown any reasons as to why they have not filed the documents mentioned in the list along with written statement and further they have failed even to file copies of the listed documents along with their written statement. There was no mention made about these documents in the written statement and further no reasons have stated in their affidavit as to why the listed documents were not filed and when they came into possession of the revision petitioners' hands. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the petition. Objections were also raised with respect to genuineness of the documents. The learned trial Judge dismissed the said Interlocutory Application finding that the revision petitioners-defendants had failed to state any reasons as to why the documents could not be filed along with the written statement. 5. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the petition. Objections were also raised with respect to genuineness of the documents. The learned trial Judge dismissed the said Interlocutory Application finding that the revision petitioners-defendants had failed to state any reasons as to why the documents could not be filed along with the written statement. 5. Learned counsel Sri T.L.K. Sharma, appearing on behalf of the revision petitioners, while fairly submitting that the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., could have been more elaborate for condonation of said lapse and fervently prays for allowing of the revision petition on the ground that prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioners in the suit if the documents are not taken on record. 6. Learned counsel Sri P. Chandra Shekar Reddy, appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs, vehemently opposed the revision petition and further stated that there were no bonafidies in the very filing of the Civil Revision Petition and specifically pointed out that the Order in I.A. was passed on 07.08.2012 and the Civil Revision Petition was filed only on 27.08.2014, in other words after a lapse of two years and the real intention of the revision petitioners is only to harass the respondents. He would point out by drawing specific attention to Order VIII of CPC and submits that before granting leave to file the documents, which were not filed along with the written statement, the Court should be satisfied based on the affidavits filed before the Court that the party was prevented for genuine and valid reasons and in spite of their best efforts could not file the said documents. In the present case the Court below found that there were no valid reasons assigned and as a matter of fact there were no reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. He further submits that the Court below had already closed the evidence on behalf of the defendants and the matter is posted for arguments and hence he prays for dismissal of the suit. 7. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the Interlocutory Application filed under Order VIII Rule 1(3) of CPC before the trial Court, there were no reasons whatsoever assigned for not filing those documents along with the written statement or immediately within a reasonable time after filing of the written statement. 7. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the Interlocutory Application filed under Order VIII Rule 1(3) of CPC before the trial Court, there were no reasons whatsoever assigned for not filing those documents along with the written statement or immediately within a reasonable time after filing of the written statement. The affidavit merely says that they are important documents and the Court has wide powers to permit the filing of the documents. In such circumstances, one cannot find fault with the order of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, for dismissing the I.A. At the same time, one cannot be oblivious to the fact, in most of the cases it is the advocates who drafts the affidavits and petitions, which are filed in the Court and the parties are mostly ignorant of legal formalities required to be complied. They repose so much of faith and trust in their advocates, they merely sign the affidavits placed before them without even understanding the contents. 8. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petition under Order VIII Rule 1(3) of CPC, goes to show that the party viz., N. Premaiah, had signed the affidavit in Telugu. The affidavit even does not state that the contents were explained to the deponent and he having understood the same had signed the affidavit. In such circumstances, the Courts are required to be little more pragmatic and show some element of latitude while disposing of the petitions of this nature. 9. Considering the delay in filing the Civil Revision Petition, this Court had called for a report from the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge and the learned Presiding Officer had submitted the report. A perusal of the report revealed that for some reason or the other not much progress was made in the case between August 2012 and June, 2014. It was only on 04.07.2014, affidavit in chief of P.W. 3 was filed and thereafter there was some effort made to proceed with the case and the Court had closed the defendants' side evidence on 05.08.2014. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioners submitted that the application was made in the Court below praying for reopening of the case for adducing evidence and the same is under consideration. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioners submitted that the application was made in the Court below praying for reopening of the case for adducing evidence and the same is under consideration. Considering these facts in the interest of justice, more particularly the dispute is in relation to immovable property, I am inclined to allow the Revision Petition subject to certain conditions as under:- i) Revision Petitioners-defendants shall pay a sum of Rs. 7,500/- to the respondents-plaintiffs on or before 18.12.2014 and further shall proceed with trial by adducing evidence. ii) Revision Petitioners-defendants shall not seek any adjournments on one pretext or the other and they shall cooperate with the Court in completing the trial. iii) The receipt of the documents shall be without prejudice to the right of the plaintiffs to raise their objections with respect to each document about its relevancy, admissibility and proof. iv) Subject to the above conditions the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, may take documents on file and proceed to dispose of the suit, preferably within a period of six months. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Petition allowed