Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 87 (AP)

Axene Evangelical Mission v. Konakalla Jacob Raju

2020-02-03

G.SHYAM PRASAD

body2020
JUDGMENT : G. Shyam Prasad, J. 1. This civil revision petition arises out of the order dated 27.4.2018 passed in IA No. 402 of 2018 in OS No. 223 of 2009 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. 2. Heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit OS No. 223 of 2009. He filed an Interlocutory Application in IA No. 402 of 2018 under Order VII Rule 14(3) and Section 151 CPC before the Trial Court to receive the list of documents as documentary evidence on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff in the suit OS No. 223 of 2009 by condoning the delay in filing the same. List of the documents are as follows: (1) Acquaintance register maintained by the plaintiff. (2) Account book maintained by the plaintiff for the construction of Churches and other buildings. (3) List of Executive Committee Members of A.E. Mission, Tadepalligudem, for the years 2017-2018. 4. The Trial Court has dismissed the above application on the ground that the petitioner has not given any satisfactory reasons to show that it was beyond his control for non-filing of those documents earlier alongwith plaint and there was no reference about those documents in the plaint. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not given ny reasons for non-filing of those documents earlier alongwith plaint when the suit was filed in the year 2009. The petition is coming up for filing those documents in the year 2018 and therefore the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in Bada Bodaiah v. Bada Lingaswamy, 2003 (1) ALD 790 : 2002 Law Suit (AP) 986, wherein this Court observed in Para 13 as follows: "13. A reading of Rule 1 of Order XIII alone would show that the Court shall receive the documents produced on or before the settlement of issues if the copies thereof have been filed alongwith the plaint or written statement. The Court has no power to receive the documents produced subsequently. A reading of Rule 1 of Order XIII alone would show that the Court shall receive the documents produced on or before the settlement of issues if the copies thereof have been filed alongwith the plaint or written statement. The Court has no power to receive the documents produced subsequently. Further, sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order VII empowers the Court to give permission or leave to the plaintiff to produce documents at a subsequent stage of hearing of the suit Order XIII Rule 1 and Order VII Rule 14(3) have to be read together harmoniously. Reading together would lead that if the plaintiff applies for permission or leave to produce documents to be received in evidence at the hearing of the suit which documents were not produced on or before settlement of the issues or at the time of production of the plaint, the Court has to exercise sound discretion having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. Mere non-mention of the documents in the plaint or subsequent incidental or supplemental proceedings in the suit does not in any manner affect the power of the Court to grant leave to produce the documents at the subsequent stage. Non-mentioning of the documents sought to be produced at the subsequent stage is a curable defect. With leave of Court, which is condition precedent under sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of Order VII read with sub-rule (1) of Order 13 to receive the documents, documents can be produced at the time of trial. But Order VII Rule 14(3) being an exception to the rule in Order VII Rule 14(1) as well as Order XII Rule 1(1)(2), the power to grant must be exercised in rare cases and not in a routine manner." 7. Since the trial in the suit has been commenced in the year 2018, and only the witness PW 1 has been examined in chief so far, it is appropriate to permit the petitioner to file those documents. The respondents are also permitted to file additional written statement, if any, and also any documents in support of their contentions. 8. Since the trial in the suit has been commenced in the year 2018, and only the witness PW 1 has been examined in chief so far, it is appropriate to permit the petitioner to file those documents. The respondents are also permitted to file additional written statement, if any, and also any documents in support of their contentions. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and in the light of the ratio laid down in the above judgment of this Court, the petitioner is permitted to file those documents under Order VII Rule 14(1) and Order XII Rule 1(1)(2) of CPC and the Trial Court is directed to take up the matter and dispose of the same in accordance with law, by giving opportunity, by receiving the documents filed by the petitioner, within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the above observations, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. 10. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.