Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1121 (AP)

Chavatapalli Daveedu v. Chavatapalli Prasad

2022-10-28

V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

body2022
ORDER : 1. Plaintiff before the trial Court filed these revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. C.R.P.No.1218 of 2019 questions the correctness of order dated 29.03.2019 of learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadole in I.A.No.164 of 2019 in O.S.No.95 of 2015. C.R.P.No.1465 of 2019 questions the correctness of order dated 29.03.2019 of learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadole in I.A.No.163 of 2019 in O.S.No.95 of 2015. 2. O.S.95 of 2015 is a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking for permanent injunction against defendants. The property in dispute is described in the plaint schedule as 200 Sq.yards of site with thatched shed in it having door No.12-99 situated in Gundugolanu Village, Bhimadole Mandal. In the plaint it is stated that one Smt Sattemma @ Suvarthamma owned the plaint schedule property and she had given it to as Stridhana to her daughter Smt Chavatapalli Kamalamma and thereafter Chavatapalli Kamalamma on appreciating the services rendered by the plaintiff bequeathed this property to him under a will dated 05.10.2012. Therefore, plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of this property. Earlier to him for 38 years the testator Kamalamma and her husband Isriale owned and possessed that property. During their life time she raised a thatched hut and after it came down to plaintiff, he removed it for Vasthu reasons and kept the property vacant. In the recent past the plaintiff intended to make a construction and obstruction came from the defendants and therefore the suit. 3. It may be noted here that at Para ‘3’ of the plaint there is a clear recital that the plaint schedule property is a vacant site. However, in the plaint schedule the property is described as site with a thatched shed therein. 4. Defendants pleaded their case and the suit went for trial. On 18.03.2019 the suit was posted for hearing arguments on both sides. It was at that stage, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.163/2019 under Section 151 C.P.C. to reopen the evidence and filed I.A.No.164 of 2019 under Order XVIII Rule 17 & Section 151 C.P.C. to recall him/Pw.1 to mark a document namely possession certificate dated 16.03.2019 as a document on his behalf. In these two applications it is mentioned that the proposed document is a very important document to establish the case of the plaintiff. In these two applications it is mentioned that the proposed document is a very important document to establish the case of the plaintiff. He could not earlier obtain this proposed document from Gram Panchayat, Gundugolanu and therefore he could not file it earlier and there are no latches and negligence on his part. 5. Defendant No.1/Respondent No.1 filed a counter stating that with a view to drag the matter further this application is filed. The proposed document would show that the property is in Lakshminarayanapet. The plaint and plaint schedule do not disclose that the suit property is at Lakshimnarayanapet. It is stated that the plaint schedule property situate in Harijanapet or Arundatipet of Gundugolanu Village. That the proposed document was issued by the Panchayat Secretary who is incompetent to issue such certificate. The alleged certificate does not carry any value and it is issued based on voters list. Smt Kamalamma died prior to the year 2011 and therefore the question that she lived in Door No.12-99 in the year 2011 is incorrect. It is further mentioned that plaintiff as Pw.1 in his cross examination admitted that the plaint schedule property belonged to late Devarapalli Ramudu. Therefore the question of Kamalamma and her husband living in the plaint schedule property does not arise. For these reasons, Respondent No.1 sought for the dismissal of the petition. 6. After due enquiry, learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadole, dismissed both the applications. 7. Aggrieved by those orders the plaintiff preferred these two revision petitions. C.R.P.No.1218 of 2019 assails the Order in I.A.No.164 of 2019. The C.R.P.No.1465 of 2019 assails the Order in I.A.No.163 of 2019. 8. Since both revisions pertain to the same case and since the facts contended in both petitions are same they are disposed of by this common order. 9. Learned trial Court recorded its reasons for dismissal of the petitions by stating that the suit was filed in the year 2015 and the proposed document was issued on 16.03.2019 and the plaintiff failed to explain the reasons for delay except saying that Panchayat authorities did not issue the certificate. 9. Learned trial Court recorded its reasons for dismissal of the petitions by stating that the suit was filed in the year 2015 and the proposed document was issued on 16.03.2019 and the plaintiff failed to explain the reasons for delay except saying that Panchayat authorities did not issue the certificate. It is further mentioned that since plaintiff failed to mention that the property in dispute is in Lakshminarayanapet and since Pw.1 deposed that plaint schedule property belonged to one Devarapalli Ramudu and since the proposed document was not issued based on the record maintained by Panchayat, but it was issued based on voters list, there was no point in reopening the suit or recalling Pw.1 for exhibiting such document. 10. In these revisions, the said Orders are questioned stating that trial Court ignored the diligence on the part of plaintiff and the need for document that the document supports the case of the plaintiff as the testator got this property and bequeathed it to the plaintiff. It is mentioned in this revision that the plaintiff applied for the certificate/proposed document in the year 2015 itself and the Government Authorities did not issue it all these years and the plaintiff was helpless and it was beyond his capacity to obtain it during the time of trial. Learned trial Court ignored all these aspects and dismissed the petitions and therefore they shall be set-aside. 11. As against that, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the document is made from irrelevant material and not useful and it is belated and the order of the trial Court is in accordance with law and facts and no interference is needed. 12. On hearing both sides and on considering their submissions and the material on record, the following point falls for consideration is: “Did the trial Court fail to exercise judicious discretion resulting in miscarriage of justice requiring correction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?” 13. POINT:- The suit is for permanent injunction and was filed in the year 2015 and collection of evidence on both sides by the trial Court was completed and the suit was coming up for arguments and was listed on 18.03.2019. Since arguments were not completed, the trial is still open. In the normal course when the parties intend to adduce evidence, Courts are liberal in granting permissions. Since arguments were not completed, the trial is still open. In the normal course when the parties intend to adduce evidence, Courts are liberal in granting permissions. However, expeditious trial is also a matter for consideration in the interest of one and all. Both the applications were felt necessary by the plaintiff as the plaintiff wanted to have one document exhibited on his side. A copy of the said document is on record. It was issued by Panchayat Secretary, Gundugolanu Village and it is dated 16.03.2019. It is titled as “Druva Patram”. In it, it is mentioned that the issuing authority had verified voters list of the year 2011 and on consideration of that, the certificate was issued, showing that Smt Chavatapalli Kamalamma W/o.Isrieal lived in the then Door No.12-99 in Lakshminarayanapet, Gundugolanu Gram Panchayat, Bhimadolu Mandal, West Godavari District. It is that document which the plaintiff wanted to bring on record. Be it noted, for proof of contents of a document such as a certificate the author of the document has to give evidence. Plaintiff never sought for the evidence of Panchayat Secretary in proof of the truth of the contents of the proposed document. That failure gains importance in the light of contention of the counter raised by Defendant No.1/Respondent No.1 that the contents of the document are incorrect and false. Despite such contention, plaintiff failed to take necessary steps. Plaintiff/Pw.1 himself wanted to be recalled to prove the document. Filing of such document without any attempt to prove the truth of its contents does not commend. It does not help any Court of law to decide the facts at dispute based on such a document. It is rightly recorded by the learned trial Court that the proposed document does not show that Panchayat from its own records found that in Door No.12-99 Smt Chavatapalli Kamalamma lived. An official certification is expected to certify from the entries available in their records, but not on what others say. The proposed certificate shows that the said Panchayat Secretary was not certifying from his records but he was making a mention that he verified the voters list and found from it that Smt Kamalamma lived in that house and therefore he certified it. The proposed certificate shows that the said Panchayat Secretary was not certifying from his records but he was making a mention that he verified the voters list and found from it that Smt Kamalamma lived in that house and therefore he certified it. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is that residence of a voter contained in voters list is out of voter?s own information and it is not based on any document. Therefore, what is noted and contained in the proposed document, which is based on the voters list, cannot carry any evidentiary value. That contention was accepted by the trial Court. The revision petitioner failed to answer as to how one could call acceptance of such contention as untenable or out of reason or logic or against law. 14. In the affidavit of the revision petitioner filed before the learned trial Court, it is mentioned that he was not given the certificate on earlier occasion and therefore he could not file it early. In this revision, he stated that he had applied for it in the year 2015 itself but the delay was only on the part of Panchayat in granting it at an earlier point of time. It is mentioned that revision petitioner is helpless and therefore could not file it early. Here it shall be stated that precisely to obviate such difficulty, Rule 130 of Civil Rules of Practice made a provision. The same is extracted here: “When a party to a suit or proceeding seeks to obtain a certified copy of a public document for being filed into court in that suit or proceeding, he may apply to the court wherein the suit or proceeding, is pending for the issue of a certificate to enable him to obtain such copy from the appropriate authority, and the court shall, on being prima facie satisfied that the production of the certified copy in the suit or proceeding is necessary, issue to the applicant a certificate to that effect.” The revision petitioner is being assisted by a learned counsel having been participating in the legal battle, should have taken recourse the above provision but he did not do it. One does not attribute ignorance of law to anyone. One does not attribute ignorance of law to anyone. When the law makes a provision and the party did not take aid of it he cannot say that his application filed at the stage of argument of suit is a bonafied application. The conduct would be bonafied only if it is preceded by due care and diligence. That is absent in this case. It is in the light of the above facts and circumstances, the view taken by the trial Court that, it was a belated application and was not based on proper records shall be held as correct. At any rate, decisions taken concerning evidence do not call for interference while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India is the law enunciated by this Court in M.B.Chander Vs M/s.Balakrishna Rao Charitable Trust, [(2016) 6 ALT.1]. The grounds urged in the revision failed to show any illegality or irregularity or failure to exercise judicious discretion on the part of the trial Court. Hence point is answered against the revision petitioner. 15. In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed confirming the Orders dated 29.03.2019 in I.A.Nos.163 and 164 of 2019 in O.S.No.95 of 2015 on the file of Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadole. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.