Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 150 (TS)

M. Ratna Reddy Hyd v. P. Sushil Ramchander Hyd

2022-03-07

N.TUKARAMJI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2022
ORDER : N. TUKARAMJI, J. This Revision has been filed assailing the docket order dated 18.11.2016 in O.S.No.1433 of 2013 on the fie of the XVIII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by the second defendant whereby the document/minutes of the meeting dated 08.11.2014 (hereinafter for brevity ‘the document’) sought to be marked while examining PW-2, was rejected. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and respondent and perused the record. 3. The relevant facts needed for this revision are that the first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction. In the suit, the revision petitioner/second defendant filed petition vide I.A.No.204 of 2016 under Order VIII Rule 1(A)(3) of Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave of the Court to receive ‘the document’. That petition was allowed on 09.09.2016. Thereafter, when the document was placed for marking during the examination of PW-2, the first respondent/plaintiff raised objection to receive the document in evidence by citing authorities. Considering the same, the Court in the impugned docket order had rejected to receive the document in evidence on the ground that the document was an outcome of negotiations for settlement. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/second defendant vehemently contended that, the Court after receiving the document erred in rejecting the same as inadmissible in evidence. That apart, the Court failed to consider that if the negotiation was culminated into agreement, the same would have been admissible in evidence, and that the document should have been admitted in evidence for proper adjudication of the issues between the parties. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff denied the very execution of the document and contended that it is product of forgery. Even otherwise, the Court had properly held that the document is not admissible in evidence. Further, there is no pleading in the written statement about the transaction or the document. As such, the document is not relevant and cannot be received without the foundational pleading. Hence, the revision has no merit. 6. The respondents have placed reliance on the following authorities to project the legal position: (i) In Shibcharan Das v. Gulab Chand Chhoteylal, AIR 1936 Allahabad 157 the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, categorically observed that “where Negotiations were being conducted with a view to settlement and that being so, we are bound to hold that these negotiations were being conducted without prejudice. In such circumstances it is not open for one of the parties to give evidence of an admission made by another.” (ii) The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Surjit Kour v. Gurucharan Singh, AIR 1973 Punjab and Haryana 18 held that” in any case, this letter admittedly was written when the compromise talks were going on, the inference drawn by the learned Judge from all the circumstances was that, the letter written at a time when the parties had agreed that no evidence would be given regarding it. That being so, the case will be covered by the second condition laid down under Section 23 and as such, the husband could claim privilege regarding the same.” (iii) In Bouri Bandhu Mohanti and another v. Suresh Chandra Mohanti, AIR 1992 Orissa 136 the same view is reiterated by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa. 7. In these rival pleadings, the point arises for determination is whether the impugned docket order is sustainable in facts and law? 8. Admittedly, earlier an application of the revision petitioner/second defendant under Order VIII Rule 1(A)(3) of the C.P.C. to receive the document was allowed by condoning the delay and the document was received on to file. 9. The Rule 1(A) Order VIII of C.P.C. specifies the duty of the defendant to produce the documents along with the written statement upon which he relies and on failure the sub-section (3) provides that the documents shall not be received at subsequent stage without leave of the Court. At any stretch, the receipt of document on to file, though an assent, is not an inevitable admission into evidence. The document so received stands in equivalent position to that of producing the same along with the pleadings/written statement and such documents would be received in evidence during trial, subject to the validity, relevancy, and the admissibility. Thus, the premise that receipt of document by the Court is an automatic admission of the document in evidence is misinterpretation. 10. On the other aspect, the version of the revision petitioner/second defendant is revealing that during the suit proceedings, in consequence of the discussions for compromise between the parties, the document came into existence. As such, there cannot be any possibility of this fact being reflected in the written statement. 10. On the other aspect, the version of the revision petitioner/second defendant is revealing that during the suit proceedings, in consequence of the discussions for compromise between the parties, the document came into existence. As such, there cannot be any possibility of this fact being reflected in the written statement. Prima facie, the document is not a material or evidence to substantiate any pleading of the written statement, but the subsequent event. Howsoever, the respondent/plaintiff is disputing that the document is aftereffect of forgery. 11. Even if the revision petitioner’s version is believed as it is, the circumstances are indicating that there was an effort between the parties to settle the dispute out side the Court and it resulted in an understanding as in the document. Howbeit, by the stance of the respondent/plaintiff is indicating that the settlement is not effected or acted upon. 12. It is common knowledge that where the parties makes any attempt to settle the dispute by way of negotiations for compromise, as there would be some give and take, the parties are bound to make statements to arrive at conclusions. In such circumstances, none of the party would like to give an advantage to the other side for making use of their statements in that process in the judicial proceedings. Only upon such express or implied understanding, the parties intending to compromise would engage in discussions for settlement. As such even in the instant case, an inference can be drawn that the process of compromise/settlement between the parties herein was also without prejudice to the interests of either party. 13. In this context, relevant rule of evidence Section 23 of the Indian Evidence Act postulates that in civil cases an admission is not relevant, when it is made upon express condition that evidence of it is not to be given or under circumstances from which the Court can infer that the parties agreed together that evidence of it should not be given. 14. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of the present case, the legal position and the authorities relied on by the first respondent/plaintiff are fortifying the above stated view. As the elements in emergence of the document are within the ambit of the Section 23 of the Indian Evidence Act, one of the parties to the compromise talks for settlement i.e. first respondent/plaintiff’s assertion of privilege is sustainable. As the elements in emergence of the document are within the ambit of the Section 23 of the Indian Evidence Act, one of the parties to the compromise talks for settlement i.e. first respondent/plaintiff’s assertion of privilege is sustainable. Consequently the document stands not relevant and inadmissible in evidence. 15. In view of the reasons aforementioned, we are of the considered opinion that as no infirmity or impropriety is perceptible, the impugned order deserves to be confirmed. In effect, the revision petition fails on merit, accordingly dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, in this revision petition, shall stand closed.