Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 115 (TS)

Team Engineers v. Harbour Sales Pvt. Ltd.

2022-03-02

A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

body2022
ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated 05.12.2018 passed in I.A. No. 1027 of 2018 in O.S. No. 411 of 2012 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. 2. This application in I.A. No. 1027 of 2018 was filed under Order-VII, Rule-14(3), read with section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’) for receiving the documents in evidence on behalf of plaintiff. 3. Heard learned counsel on both sides. 4. For the sake of convenience the parties are herein after referred to as plaintiff and defendants as they were arrayed in the original suit. 5. The plaintiff has filed the original suit for recovery of suit claim of Rs. 14,46,29,103/-. The defendants have filed written statement. Issues are settled. During trial, evidence of PW-1 was recorded, some documents appears to have been marked. At this stage, the plaintiff-M/s. Team Engineers Advanced Technologies (I) Private Limited, has filed this application in I.A. No. 1027 of 2018 under Order-VII, Rule-14 (3) of CPC, to receive certain documents that are filed along with the application on behalf of plaintiff. The trial Court through the order impugned has permitted the plaintiff to file the documents with an observation that all the documents except the documents dated 18.10.2018 and 29.10.2018 shall be received in evidence subject to proof and relevancy. It is pertinent to mention that along with this application in I.A. No. 1027 of 2018, the plaintiff has filed another application in I.A. No. 1026 of 2018 under Order-XVIII, Rule-17 of CPC to recall PW-1 for the purpose of marking the documents and that application was allowed. The orders in I.A. No. 1026 of 2018 attained finality, as the defendant did not challenge the same. The plaintiff has challenged the orders passed in I.A. No. 1027/2018 on the following grounds: (a) The trial Court ought to have seen that these two documents dated 18.10.2018 and 29.10.2018 are also pertain to the suit transactions relating to the payment details in Annexure I and II and these are essential documents to prove the case of the plaintiff. (b) Learned Judge ought to have seen that the suit is filed for recovery of money and in deciding the issues these documents play crucial role. 6. (b) Learned Judge ought to have seen that the suit is filed for recovery of money and in deciding the issues these documents play crucial role. 6. Learned counsel for plaintiff argued that the plaintiff has filed Original Suit for recovery of money and these two documents are quite essential. In fact, the plaintiff has categorically mentioned about the transactions in the tabular form in Page No. 58 to and again at 61 to 63 of the Paper Book and that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that unless these documents are received great prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for defendants submitted that the suit is filed in the year 2012, till 04.09.2018, plaintiff’s evidence was in progress. Now to fill up the lacunae in the evidence they are trying to recall PW-1. The disputed documents are relating to the year 2018, whereas, the original suit is filed in the year 2012 and they have no reference in the pleadings in the plaint. Affidavit filed in support of the application does not reflect the reasons as to why these documents are essential. 8. At page 58 of the paper book, the document dated 29.10.2018 is found. It is with reference to status of payment made to the defendant and in fact it was addressed to the plaintiff by the Deputy Collector, Residual Purchase and Inspection Section, Jeevan Tara Building, 5, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. It is an official document received by the plaintiff in the normal course. Document dated 18.10.2018 is at Page 61 of the paper book. Again the said document deals with the status of the payment made to M/s. Harbour Sales Private Limited (HSPL) i.e. defendant No. 1. It was addressed to Sri. V.P. Verma, Deputy Director (RP&I) Section, New Delhi. Though the document is dated 18.10.2018, it relates to the transactions for the period from 2008 to 2010 along with Annexure-A. These are the two documents that the trial court has refused to grant leave as required under Order-7, Rule-14 (3) of CPC. 9. Learned Counsel for plaintiff has relied on the following decisions. 10. Though the document is dated 18.10.2018, it relates to the transactions for the period from 2008 to 2010 along with Annexure-A. These are the two documents that the trial court has refused to grant leave as required under Order-7, Rule-14 (3) of CPC. 9. Learned Counsel for plaintiff has relied on the following decisions. 10. Bada Bodaiah vs. Bada Lingaswamy, MANU/AP/1167/2002 : 2003 (1) ALD 790 , wherein this court while comparing the earlier provisions of Order XIII Rule-1 with the amended provisions of Order-VII, Rule-14(3) has observed that “Reading both the provisions 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 and 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.” 11. In another decision between Cable Corporation of India Limited vs. Sanghi Industries Limited, MANU/AP/0134/2003 : AIR 2003 A.P. 282 : 2003 (2) ALD 558 this Court after elaborate discussions held that “from a reading of the provisions of Order-XIII, Rule- 1 and 2 and Order-VII, Rule-14, it becomes abundantly clear, that the Rules, shall in no way affect or limit or abridge the inherent power of the Court to give such directions or pass such orders as may be necessary for meeting the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.” 12. In Mamidi Rajamani vs. Panjala Prameela and Others, MANU/AP/0503/2017 : 2017 (5) ALD 722 : 2017 (5) ALT 400 this Court while relying on the above two decisions held that after introduction of sub-rule (3) of Rule-14, Order-7 CPC, by Amendment Act 22 of 2002, it is permissible, for valid reasons shown, that if any document which ought to have been produced by the petitioner at the time of presentation of the plaint, it can be received subsequently, with the leave of the Court. 13. 13. Whereas the learned counsel for respondents and defendants relied on the principles laid in the following decisions in support of his case. 14. Vadiraj Naggappa Vernakar vs. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, (2009) 4 SCC 410 . In this decision, the Honourable Supreme Court was dealing with the provisions of Order- XVIII, Rule-17 CPC for recall of witnesses, whereas, in the present case the facts are quite distinct. The application is filed under Order-VII, Rule-14(3) seeking leave of the Court for receiving the documents. It is pertinent to mention that though PW-1 was recalled vide I.A. No. 1026/2018, the defendant did not choose to challenge that order and it has attained finality. Further in the above decision, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the main purpose of Order-XVIII, Rule- 17 CPC is to enable the Court while trying a suit to clarify any doubts which it may have with regard to evidence let in by the parties. The said provisions are not intended to be used to fill up the lacunae in the evidence of the witness which has already been examined. In that view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the principles laid in the above decisions are not helpful in any way. 15. Learned Counsel for defendants also placed reliance on the following decisions. 16. Bolla Ajay Babu vs. Nalla Manikyamma, 2009 Law Suit (AP) 664 and Mounika vs. Surendra Bhansali and Others, 2016 Law Suit (Raj) 985. 17. Bolla Ajay Babu is a case where it was observed that in the absence of any reference about the document in the pleadings, which is sought to be filed, leave was refused by the Court and the action of the Court was confirmed by the High Court. 18. In case of Mounika vs. Surendra Bhansali, the High Court of Rajasthan was dealing with the provisions of Order-VII, Rule-14(3) of CPC and the circumstances under which leave can be granted held that if the documents are relevant for complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute and they were not filed by the parties at the appropriate stage before recording evidence and on perusal of the documents it is felt essential for adjudication of the lis between the parties, such documents cannot be received unless plausible explanation regarding belated production of the documents is made in the affidavit. 19. 19. Reverting back to the facts of the case on hand, the plaintiffs have filed these two documents dated 29.10.2018 and 18.10.2018 at a later point of time stating that during pendency of the suit, they were received and it is the official communication received from the Government of India, more particularly, in the document dated 18.10.2018 it is mentioned with regard to the payments made for the period from 2008 to 2010. It is well said that procedures are handmade and they should not come in the way of advancing of justice and they should be a facilitator of justice. In this regard it is apt to refer the observations made by the Honourable Apex Court in Bhagwan Swaroop vs. Mool Chand, MANU/SC/0391/1983 : AIR 1983 SC 355 which reads as under: “But the law of procedure devised for advancing justice and not impeding the same.......a Code of Procedure designed to facilitate justice and further its ends; not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up.” 20. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, as the plaintiff has filed the original suit for recovery of huge amount, evidence on behalf of plaintiffs is in progress, the Court below has rightly allowed the application in I.A. No. 1026/2018 recalling PW-1 for marking the documents received as per the orders in I.A. No. 1027/2018 as indicated above. Such documents shall be received in evidence on behalf of plaintiffs subject to proof and relevancy and they cannot be refused merely on the ground that they relate to subsequent period of the suit transaction which is factually not correct since they refer to the suit transaction only. That in the document dated 18.10.2018 it is specified that supply payment register have been traced and found that Rs. 5,69,41,320/- were paid to the defendant No. 1 during the period of 2008 to 2010 as per the annexed details. Similarly, the other document dated 29.10.2018 along with its annexure relates to January-2008. Viewed from that perceptive, the order of the Court below in refusing to grant leave to the plaintiffs for reception of the document dated 18.10.2018 and 29.10.2018, suffers with infirmities and liable to be set aside. 21. Similarly, the other document dated 29.10.2018 along with its annexure relates to January-2008. Viewed from that perceptive, the order of the Court below in refusing to grant leave to the plaintiffs for reception of the document dated 18.10.2018 and 29.10.2018, suffers with infirmities and liable to be set aside. 21. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the Court below is directed to receive the said documents dated 18.10.2018 and 29.10.2018 along with other documents filed through I.A. No. 1027 of 2018. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to the costs. 22. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.