Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 718 (AP)

S. Surendra Rao v. Sirasati Chengal Rao (Died)

2023-04-26

SUBBA REDDY SATTI

body2023
ORDER 1. Plaintiff in suit filed the present revision against the order dated 22.12.2022 in I.A.No.1861 of 2022 in O.S.No.204 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Piler. 2. Plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.204 of 1999 originally against defendant No.1 seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 05.10.1998. Later, plaintiff impleaded defendant No.2. Pending the suit, plaintiff filed I.A.No.1861 of 2022 under order VII Rule 14 (3) and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC), 1956 to condone the delay in filing the document i.e. compromise petition between plaintiff and defendant No.1. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition it was contended that pending the suit, plaintiff and defendant No.1 entered a compromise on 30.01.2002 and filed a memo of terms of compromise before the Court. The said compromise was signed by defendant No.1 along with the counsel and attested by three witnesses. Since the defendant No.2 filed petition seeking impleadment, compromise was not recorded. The said document is relevant and the same was traced out recently and filed the application to receive the document by condoning the delay. 4. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 filed separate counters and opposed the application. 5. Trial Court by order dated 22.12.2022 dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed. 6. Heard Sri K. Muni Reddy Bala Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt P. Saraswathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 9 and Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5. 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the document sought to be filed is a compromise entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Since the document is not available, it was not filed immediately. However, the suit is coming up for cross-examination of P.W.1. The relevancy and admissibility will be decided by the Court and when the document is sought to be marked. At the stage of receiving of document Court shall not decide the admissibility of document. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, would contend that the alleged compromise petition said to have been signed by defendant No.1 was not filed during the lifetime of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 died in the year 2015. Plaintiff created the alleged compromise and pressed it into service by way of this application. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, would contend that the alleged compromise petition said to have been signed by defendant No.1 was not filed during the lifetime of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 died in the year 2015. Plaintiff created the alleged compromise and pressed it into service by way of this application. Plaintiff failed to explain the delay in not filing the said petition. 9. The point for consideration is: Whether the plaintiff shown proper reasons to receive the document? 10. Suit O.S.No.204 of 1999 is filed for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 05.10.1998. Defendant No.1 filed written statement and is contesting the suit. Pending the suit, defendant No.1 died in the year 2015. Defendant Nos.6 to 9 are impleaded as legal heirs of deceased defendant No.1. 11. Pending the suit, defendant No.2 impleaded and came on record basing on the agreement of sale dated 06.06.1998. The said impleadment petition was ordered on 16.09.2010. Suit is coming up for trial. Plaintiff pleaded that a compromise was entered into between plaintiff and defendant No.1. The said document was not filed earlier and now filed and prayed the Court to receive the document. 12. The reason assigned is that the document was not traced out. Document sought to be filed after 20 years. Plaintiff has not assigned proper reasons as to why he did not file document at the earliest point of time. Leave to file document will not be granted for mere asking. Petitioner must satisfy the Court and has to assign adequate cause as to why he has not filed the said document at the earliest point of time. The admissibility and relevancy of document will be decided at later point of time when the document is exhibited. 13. No reasons were assigned to receive the alleged compromise deed. The Trial Court assigned valid reasons and dismissed the application. There is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the trial Court brooks interference by this Court. Thus, the revision fails and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.