Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 67 (TS)

Syed Mohammed v. Syed Moinuddin

2021-03-04

CHALLA KODANDA RAM

body2021
JUDGMENT : Challa Kodanda Ram, J. 1. Petitioner and respondent Nos. 1 to 69 filed O.S. No. 157 of 1983 for partition and separate possession of vast extent of land. They also filed I.A. No. 742 of 2017 to receive the certified copy of the proceedings dated 23.02.2012 issued by the Joint Collector (S), Ranga Reddy District, and to mark the same by condoning the delay. The trial Court by observing that the delay is not at all explained to receive the document, dismissed the said I.A. vide order dated 12.02.2018. Hence, this Revision. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on earlier occasion, when the afore-said suit was dismissed by the trial Court, the petitioner and other plaintiffs filed A.S. No. 133 of 1994 and this Court vide judgment dated 27.07.2007 allowed the same remanding the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal after affording an opportunity to both the parties to amend the pleadings or adduce additional evidence, if they choose. In the light of the same, the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1 to 69 filed the present I.A. to bring on record the proceedings dated 23.02.2012. He further submits that the trial Court dismissed the I.A. without considering the merits of the matter and the explanation given for the delay in bringing the said proceedings on record. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manohar Lal, 2017 (2) LAWS (SC) 77, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the amendment of the pleadings can be made at any stage and likewise, in terms of Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC., additional evidence can also be brought on record at any stage, even at the stage of trial, first appeal, and second appeal with the leave of the Court. He also placed reliance on the judgment dated 14.03.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3048 of 2019. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 97 to 101 submits that there are no bona fides on the part of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1 to 69 and filed the I.A. only to drag on the proceedings and further, no explanation is forthcoming for the delay in bringing the said proceedings on record, though the petitioner himself is a party to the same. 97 to 101 submits that there are no bona fides on the part of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1 to 69 and filed the I.A. only to drag on the proceedings and further, no explanation is forthcoming for the delay in bringing the said proceedings on record, though the petitioner himself is a party to the same. He also submits that the suit is at the stage of arguments and allowing the I.A. at this point of time, would only further get the matter delayed and there being no merits in the present case, prays for dismissal of the Revision. 4. At the outset, it may be noted that in M/s. Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. (supra), in the context of considering the amendments to the pleadings, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the judgment in Revajeetu Builders and Developments Vs. Narayana Swamy and Sons and others, (2009) 10 SCC 84 , wherein it culled out the following principle in para 63 thereof, which reads as under: "63. On critically analyzing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment: (1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; (3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. There are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive." 5. In M/s. Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. (1 supra), the observations made therein are in line with the statutory provisions of Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC. 6. There are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive." 5. In M/s. Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. (1 supra), the observations made therein are in line with the statutory provisions of Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC. 6. As per Order 7 Rule 14(3) C.P.C., the indulgence that is to be granted to the parties to the proceedings is subject to the Court being satisfied of the reasons for not bringing the documents on record at the earliest point of time. 7. After amendment of C.P.C. by Act 46 of 1999 with effect from 01.07.2002, it is mandatory for a party to the proceedings to enclose all the documents in his possession along with the plaint and further, mention in the list of documents, which he seeks to rely on, and with the further explanation that if a particular document mentioned in the list is not available, the reasons for the same. Likewise, Order 14 Rule 3 C.P.C. while giving discretion to the Court to allow a document, which ought to have been filed along with the plaint or which was mentioned in the list, to be brought on record at a subsequent point of time, the Court is required to satisfy that there were valid and justifiable reasons for the party seeking to bring the document on record at the later point of time. 8. In the present case, admittedly, the document which the petitioner seeks to bring on record is dated 23.02.2012 and the petitioner is a party to the said proceedings. However, there was no explanation forthcoming for not bringing on record the said document. 9. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court while remanding the matter on 27.07.2007 had given liberty to the parties to amend the pleadings or adduce additional evidence, if any, would not justify bringing on record the document dated 23.02.2012 in 2017. The reason stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Application is that the petitioner did not have the document and immediately after obtaining certified copy of it, the same has been placed on record. The reason stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Application is that the petitioner did not have the document and immediately after obtaining certified copy of it, the same has been placed on record. But, there is no mention as to why the same could not be placed at the earliest point of time i.e., immediately after the proceedings were issued or within the reasonable time. However, as per the procedure prescribed under C.P.C. as well as the Evidence Act, the plaintiff would have right of adducing evidence by way of examination-in-chief, followed by cross-examination and thereafter, re-examination, likewise, the defendants' evidence. There being no dispute that the matter is at the stage of arguments, at this point of time, even assuming that the said document is required to be brought on record, directed to be received, there is no possibility for considering the said document as evidence, as, once again, an application is required to be made by the plaintiff seeking the said document to be marked and thus, reopening the enquiry proceedings setting at naught the entire exercise which has been carried out earlier. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. 11. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand dismissed. No costs.