Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1011 (AP)

M. Vasantha Kumar v. M. Gopi Stephen

2023-07-06

B.S.BHANUMATHI

body2023
ORDER : This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 16.02.2022 dismissing the I.A. No.390 of 2021 in O.S. No.88 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal, filed by the defendants 1 to 4 under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to receive the following list of documents. Sl.No. Date Description 01. -- Letters issued by the Kadapa Regional Head Office Hebeeron Church. 02. -- Ten attested copies and petitioner’s requisition letter to the Secretary UCWF/Guntakal i.e. (Busthapana Register) from 2017 to 2020. 03. 12.08.2018 Seventeen requisition given by church devotes for Baptism and 1 Baptized copies 04. -- Five marriage wedding cards issued to the petitioner by devotes (1st defendant preached word of God in the marriages) 2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. 3. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making any illegal attacks on the administration over the plaint schedule church or on the plaintiff, who claimed to have been discharging his duties as a God servant (Pastor) of the plaint schedule church. According to the plaintiff, he was appointed as a God servant (pastor) vide letter dated 29.06.2015 issued by the Chairman of Indigenous Churches of India Trust, Hyderabad, by confirming his earlier temporary appointment dated 07.07.2014 in the same capacity, however, the defendants have been interfering with his duties and further on 07.10.2018 also the 1st defendant, with the aid of defendants 2 to 4, once again tried to interfere with the administration and as such, a complaint was also lodged before the police. 4. The 1st defendant filed a written statement in the suit denying the averments in the plaint and stating that the 1st defendant has been serving as a God servant (Pastor) from the 1st week of June 2016 on his transfer from Pulivendula of Kadapa District vide letter dated 23.05.2016 and previously, he used to work as a Pastor in Rock Prayer House, Pulivendula of Kadapa District from 2013 to 2016 and on his transfer to the plaint schedule church, he handed over the charge to church elders-Brother Devadas and Brother Balreddy and subsequently, one Anandarao, who came from Kadiri to Pulivendula. The 1st defendant claimed that since his joining in the plaint schedule church, he has been rendering devotional services, prayers and meetings in the plaint schedule church peacefully without any objection or interruption from the elders or devotees and that at no point of time after the appointment of the 1st defendant, the plaintiff has come to the plaint schedule church. It is further pleaded that the Chairman, who issued confirmation letter dated 04.12.2018 was appointed as a Chairman by the majority of Trustees in its meetings held on 01.03.2018 and that the 1st defendant has been receiving honorarium from the church management since his joining in the plaint schedule church. But suppressing all the facts, the plaintiff filed the suit by fabricating the documents. It is further pleaded that the defendants 2 to 4 have been maintaining day to day ledgers regarding the financial activities and other activities of the church and the accounts also audited by the auditor. 5. Along with the written statement, the 1st defendant filed documents (1) letter dated 16.02.2013 issued by the Indigenous Churches in India Trust, Hyderabad, (2) letter dt. 23.05.2016 transfer from Pulivendula to Guntakal and (3) the confirmation letter dated 04.12.2018. 6. Thereafter at the stage of leading the defendants’ evidence, the present petition was filed to receive the documents filed along with the letters issued by Kadapa Regional Head Office, Hebeeron Church (Beersheba Prayer House, Kadapa) for attending meetings and also the other attested copies of documents relating to the requisition letters of the 1st defendant to the Secretary, UCWF/Guntakal i.e. Busthapana Register relating to the digging of pits for burial of members of the church on their expiry in different dates. The 1st defendant stated that he has not filed these documents at the time of written statement due to non receipt of them at that time. He further stated that he is also filing requisition given by the church devotees for Baptisim done by the 1st defendant and also the wedding cards of the marriage of the devotees which are attended by the 1st defendant as a preacher as a word of the God in those marriages. He also stated that he could not file them earlier due to covid-19 also. He stated that these documents are important to prove his case and prayed to condone the delay in filing those documents and receive them. 7. He also stated that he could not file them earlier due to covid-19 also. He stated that these documents are important to prove his case and prayed to condone the delay in filing those documents and receive them. 7. The petition was opposed by filing a counter of the plaintiff denying the averments in the petition and stating that the written statement was filed on 06.03.2019, whereas the documents filed by the petitioner/1st defendant relating to the wedding invitations dated 10.05.2018, 09.01.2020, 29.04.2021, 15.06.2021 & 09.09.2021 and that except the one dated 10.05.2018 the rest of the dates are beyond the date of the written statement. It is further mentioned that burial register extracts dated 09.10.2017, 12.10.2017, 24.02.2018, 27.10.2018, 26.03.2020, 01.04.2020, 26.05.2020, 28.05.2020, 30.05.2020, 12.08.2020, 07.09.2020, 18.09.2020 are filed by the petitioner and out of them, except the document up to 27.10.2018, the remaining documents relating to the period beyond the written statement. The petitioner/1st defendant filed requisition letters for Baptism dt.05.08.2018 (1 No.), dt.06.08.2018 (09 Nos.), dt.07.08.2018 (4 Nos.), dt.10.08.2018 (3 Nos.) were all fabricated with the aid of his henchmen for the purpose of this case. The petition was resisted on the ground that no single reason was whispered regarding the proposed documents in the written statement or that they are not in his possession. It is further stated that the documents are filed at a belated stage to defeat the case of the respondent/plaintiff and hence prayed to dismiss the petition. 8. After hearing both sides, the trial court dismissed the petition by examining the provision of law under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) CPC and observing that some of the documents are only photostat copies and are beyond the date of the written statement and acquired during pendency of the suit, but even with regard to the documents for the period before the written statement, there is no whisper in the written statement about their existence and the place of their availability. It is further observed that the petitioner did not assign any good cause for not filing them along with written statement and as such the petitioner/1st defendant failed to show any good cause and the source as to how and when they secured these documents. It is also observed that though the petitioner/1st defendant stated that he reserved a right to file written statement with further facts, he did not do so. It is also observed that though the petitioner/1st defendant stated that he reserved a right to file written statement with further facts, he did not do so. It is also observed that the documents were filed at a belated stage. Having aggrieved by the order, the revision petition is filed. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner/1st defendant submitted that despite showing a good cause and the source of securing the documents specifically stating that they were furnished by the devotees of the church, the trial court did not properly appreciate the reasons. He further stated that veracity of the documents can be tested during the course of the trial, but not at the threshold. Further submitted that the documents are very material to establish the defence and a fair opportunity has to be given to the petitioner/1st defendant to place them on record. 10. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff highly objected the revision and submitted that the trial court rightly dismissed the petition giving valid reasons and he reiterated the same grounds. 11. It is settled law that quoting a wrong provision is not the bar for granting appropriate relief. Therefore, the trial court rightly examined the relief under the provision under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) CPC instead of Order VII Rule 14 CPC cited by the petitioner/1st defendant. As per Order VIII Rule 1A (3) CPC, a document which ought to be produced in court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without leave of the court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. Except keeping the rider ‘leave of the court to file a document subsequently to written statement’, no other parameters are incorporated in the provision. Therefore, a wide discretion has been conferred on the Court to grant leave to file a document subsequently to written statements, depending on the facts and circumstances in each case. Whenever a wide discretion is conferred on the court, the same must be judiciously exercised to meet the interest of justice. The endeavour of the Court must be to find out the truth and not to shut the evidence on technical approach. Order VIII Rule 1A (3) CPC does not bar the party to file a document subsequent to filing of the written statement, but what is required is only a leave of the court. The endeavour of the Court must be to find out the truth and not to shut the evidence on technical approach. Order VIII Rule 1A (3) CPC does not bar the party to file a document subsequent to filing of the written statement, but what is required is only a leave of the court. For the purpose of the exercise of judicial discretion, facts and circumstances of the case as a whole shall be considered. As can be seen from the record and the facts admitted, some of the documents came into existence subsequent to filing of the written statement. Therefore, it is obvious that there can be no reference of the subsequent documents in the written statement, prior to their existence. As such, it is improper to throw blame on the petitioner/1st defendant that they did not refer them in the written statement. Insofar as the documents relating to burial register which were in existence even before filing the written statement is concerned, the petitioner/1st defendant stated that he did not file them as they were not received by him at that time. In relation to the wedding cards, it is stated that they were given to him by his devotees. In relation to other documents, he attributed the reason to the prevalence of covid-19. When the documents are procured from different sources, it must have taken some time. Anyhow, all these reasons need not be looked into in a magnifying lens just for the purpose of granting permission to file these documents in evidence. The truth or veracity of the documents can be examined during the course of trial. If there are any lapses found in not filing these documents at an early date, some reasonable terms as to costs can be imposed on the petitioner/1st defendant, while allowing the petition. 12. Insofar as the photostat copies of the documents are concerned, the objections can be raised when documents are tendered in evidence, if the documents are inadmissible in evidence on any legal ground available to the 1st respondent/plaintiff. Their admissibility need not be decided at this juncture. Just because the leave is granted to file these documents, it is not proof of those documents. Their admissibility need not be decided at this juncture. Just because the leave is granted to file these documents, it is not proof of those documents. As such, no prejudice would be caused to the interest of the 1st respondent/plaintiff and therefore, it cannot be opposed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff on the ground that these documents are filed to defeat his case. Leave can be granted to file all these documents subject to objections that may be raised at the time of marking the documents in the evidence of the defendants. Since the trial court has failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction while deciding the petition, it is a matter fit to interfere in the revision and accordingly, the revision petition can be allowed subject to some terms as to costs. 13. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order dated 16.02.2022 in I.A. No.390 of 2021 in O.S. No.88 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal, is set aside and the I.A. No.390 of 2021 is allowed on the condition that the petitioner/1st defendant shall pay costs Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the 1st respondent/plaintiff within 10 days from the date of this order, failing which the petition stands dismissed without any further order. It is made clear that the permission to file these documents is granted giving liberty to the 1st respondent/plaintiff to raise all objections regarding the admissibility of the documents on legal terms when these documents are tendered in evidence at the defence. The trial court is further directed to dispose of the suit as early as possible. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.