Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 355 (TS)

Suresh Iyar v. S. Nagesh

2020-03-06

M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

body2020
JUDGMENT M.S.Ramachandra Rao, J. - This Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt.22.01.2020 in I.A.No.956 of 2019 in O.S.No.238 of 2014 of the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. 2. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note said to have been executed on 05.10.2009 in his favour by the petitioner. 3. Written statement was filed by the petitioner opposing the suit claim. 4. The evidence on the side of the respondent/plaintiff was placed and the matter was coming up for the evidence of the petitioner. 5. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.956 of 2019 seeking leave of the Court to mark as Ex.B1 a Bank statement of the joint bank account of the petitioner and his wife by merely stating that he could not file it at the time of filing of the written statement and at the time of cross-examination of P.W.1, P.W.1 had admitted the xerox copy of the said document. 6. This Application was opposed by the respondent who contended that the Bank statement is in the name of Smt. Sunitha Suresh and did not pertain to the petitioner and so he cannot file it. It is also stated that no proper reasons were given to receive the document at this stage. 7. By order dt.22.01.2020, the Court below dismissed this Application agreeing with the contention of the respondent/plaintiff. It also observed that the written statement filed by the petitioner did not whisper about submission of Bank statement of Smt. Sunitha Suresh and the Application filed by the petitioner also did not say as to why the Bank statement of Smt. Sunitha Suresh is relevant to the suit. 8. Challenging the same, this Revision is filed. 9. Counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that the said document is a very important piece of evidence in support of the defence of the petitioner and that the Court below erred in refusing to receive the said document. He also stated that grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if it is not received in evidence. 10. Order VIII Rule 1A(1) of CPC states: "1A. He also stated that grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if it is not received in evidence. 10. Order VIII Rule 1A(1) of CPC states: "1A. Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him.- (1) Whether the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set-off or counter-claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement. ................." 11. This provision of law has been interpreted by this Court in Ravi Satish Vs. Edala Durga Prasad, (2009) 3 ALT 236 and in Voruganti Narayana Rao Vs. Bodla Rammurthty and others, (2011) 6 ALT 299 . 12. In Voruganti Narayana Rao (2 supra), the Court observed in para 7 that: 7. Rules 1-A and 1-A(3) of Order VIII C.P.C., were substituted by Act 46 of 1999 with effect from 01.07.2002. 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 C.P.C., 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 disclose sufficient cause for his failure to produce the documents within the time stipulated in Rule 1-A of Order VIII C.P.C., the Court shall not permit the defendant to file such documents later. Unless the reasons assigned by the defendant disclose sufficient cause for his failure to produce the documents within the time stipulated in Rule 1-A of Order VIII C.P.C., 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 (1 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." 13. Thus, from both these decisions, it is clear that reasons have to be assigned by the defendant disclosing sufficient cause for his failure to produce the documents within the time stipulated in Rule 1-A of Order VIII C.P.C., and if such reasons are not disclosed, the Court should not permit the defendant to file such documents later. 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. 14. In the instant case, the affidavit filed by the petitioner in the Court below is bereft of any reason as to why the petitioner could not file the Bank statement in question at the time of filing of the written statement. Therefore, the petitioner was rightly denied leave by the Court below to file the said document. 15. I do not therefore find any error of jurisdiction in the order passed by the Court below warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 16. The Civil Revision Petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. No costs. 17. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed.