Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 753 (AP)

Ramtu Ratnamma v. Shaik Masthani

2020-12-01

B.KRISHNA MOHAN

body2020
ORDER : B. Krishna Mohan, J. 1. The C.R.P. No. 1121 of 2020 arises against the Order in I.A. No. 43 of 2020 in O.S. No. 44 of 2016 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, dated 17.02.2020. 2. The petitioners herein are the petitioners in I.A. No. 43 of 2020 in O.S. No. 44 of 2016 and they are defendants No. 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 44 of 2016. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 44 of 2016. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the 2nd respondent is the formal party and 1st Respondent is the contesting respondent before this Court. 4. The suit is filed by the 1st respondent herein seeking permanent injunction against the petitioners herein who are arrayed as defendants No. 1 and 2 before the trial Court with reference to the plaint schedule property in which the written statement was filed and the matter is being contested by the defendants. The trial was conducted, in which PW1 and PW2 were examined on behalf of the plaintiff and DW1 and DW2 were examined on behalf of the defendants and the matter is at the stage of arguments. At that juncture, the defendants 1 and 2 filed I.A. No. 43 of 2020 in O.S. No. 44 of 2016 before the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, under Section 151 C.P.C., to reopen the suit for the purpose of adducing further evidence on their behalf in the interest of justice. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after closure of the defendants' evidence, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 81 of 2017 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and the same was allowed and the Commissioner executed the warrant and filed the report. It is the case of the petitioners that during the course of trial, they could not file the necessary documents, as they were not in a position to file the same. After obtaining the same, they filed Interlocutory applications seeking the relief to reopen the suit, to recall the DW1 and to receive the additional documents which are needed in the interest of justice for the purpose of deciding the suit. After obtaining the same, they filed Interlocutory applications seeking the relief to reopen the suit, to recall the DW1 and to receive the additional documents which are needed in the interest of justice for the purpose of deciding the suit. Since there is a delay, after closure of the evidence for filing this I.A., the trial Court having considered the material on record, the averments in the I.A., dismissed the said I.A. No. 43 of 2020. Against which the present CRP No. 1121 of 2020 is filed. 6. Similarly, the petitioners filed I.A. No. 41 of 2020 in O.S. No. 44 of 2016 before the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa under Order 16 Rule 1 and 6 C.P.C., to summon the witnesses mentioned in the petition and to produce the documents for the purpose of giving evidence on behalf of the defendants. The same was considered by the trial Court and on the ground of delay in approaching the Court after the closure of the evidence, the I.A. No. 41 of 2020 was dismissed. Against which the present C.R.P. No. 1122 of 2020 is filed. 7. Similarly, the petitioners herein filed I.A. No. 42 of 2020 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, under Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) C.P.C., to condone the delay to receive the documents which are mentioned in the petition in the interest of justice. The trial Court having considered the material on record dismissed the same on the ground of delay in approaching the Court below, after closure of the evidence. Against which, the present CRP No. 1149 of 2020 arises. 8. Similarly, the petitioners herein filed I.A. No. 44 of 2020 in O.S. No. 44 of 2016 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, under Order 18 Rule 17 of C.P.C. to recall DW1 for further evidence in the interest of justice. The trial Court having considered the material on record, dismissed the said I.A., on 17.02.2020 on the ground that no valid reasons are assigned, since they have approached the Court below with this I.A., after closure of the evidence. Against which the C.R.P. No. 1156 of 2020 arises. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 10. Against which the C.R.P. No. 1156 of 2020 arises. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 10. The petitioners contended that the specific averment is taken in the written statement with regard to non-interference of the defendants with respect to the plaint schedule property, as the suit is for permanent injunction against the defendants. To support the claim of the defendants, some of the documents were brought on record, during the course of the defendants' evidence, and some other crucial documents as mentioned in the I.A., as stated above could not be brought on record during the course of trial as the said documents were not available at that time, and it took some time for producing them. Meanwhile, the defendants' evidence is closed. Unless the said documents are allowed to be brought on record, the petitioners herein would suffer an irreparable loss and hardship. 11. On the contrary, the respondents counsel submits that no cogent reasons are assigned before the trial Court, and as such, the trial Court has dismissed those I.As., and the matter is now at the stage of arguments. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, on perusal of the Orders of the Court below, this Court comes to a conclusion that one more opportunity shall be given to the defendants to examine on their side, finally, in one adjournment enabling them to bring necessary documents on record before final disposal of the suit, in order to meet the ends of justice. 13. 13. Accordingly, the CRP No. 1121 of 2020, CRP No. 1122 of 2020, CRP No. 1149 of 2020 and CRP No. 1156 of 2020 are allowed by setting aside the orders in I.A. No. 43 of 2020, I.A. No. 41 of 2020, I.A. No. 42 of 2020 and I.A. No. 44 of 2020 respectively in O.S. No. 44 of 2016 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa by giving an opportunity for the defendants to re-examine DW1 himself for the purpose of marking the said documents sought to be marked which are enclosed along with the I.A., before the trial Court by the next date of adjournment as directed by the trial Court and the defendants and the plaintiff shall cooperate with the trial Court in conclusion of the evidence by the next adjournment and in default, the trial Court is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for closure of the evidence on both the sides. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S. No. 44 of 2016 within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. But, with regard to the summoning of the witnesses in I.A. No. 41 of 2020 in O.S. No. 44 of 2016, defendants shall cooperate and they shall be ready on the next date fixed by the trial Court for adducing the evidence and marking of the documents on their side. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. No costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Civil Revision Petitions shall stand closed.