Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 387 (AP)

A. Ramanaiah v. M. Ravindranath Reddy

2024-03-22

NYAPATHY VIJAY

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. The present revision is filed against the order dated 25.07.2016 in IA No.205 of 2016 in OS No.203 of 2014 passed by the VII Additional District Judge, Gudur. 2. The petitioner is the defendant and the suit was filed for recovery of money. In the course of trial, the plaintiff filed IA No.205 of 2016 to receive the documents under Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C. This application was opposed by the petitioner and the Trial Court after hearing the contentions of respective parties, allowed the I.A., on payment of costs of Rs.500/- by the plaintiff, out of which, a sum of Rs.300/- is payable to the Mandal Legal Services Authority, Gudur and Rs.200/- to the other side. Hence, the revision petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri T. Sreedhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.S.R. Murthy, learned Counsel for the respondent. 4. The primary objection for marking the documents is that they are not relevant for the purpose of the case as the previous conduct of the parties is immaterial in civil cases. 5. This Court, after hearing both sides, is of the opinion that the relevancy and admissibility of the documents other than those that are insufficiently stamped should be decided by the Trial Court at the final stage rather than at interlocutory stage. This was the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal v. State of Gujarat, (2001) 3 SCC 1 and the Paragraphs 12 to 16 are extracted below for ready reference. "12. As pointed out earlier, on different occasions the Trial Judge has chosen to decide questions of admissibility of documents or other items of evidence, as and when objections thereto were raised and then detailed orders were passed either upholding or overruling such objections. The worse part is that after passing the orders the Trial Court waited for days and weeks for the concerned parties to go before the Higher Courts for the purpose of challenging such interlocutory orders. 13. It is an archaic practice that during the evidence collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in evidence the Court does not proceed further without passing order on such objection. 13. It is an archaic practice that during the evidence collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in evidence the Court does not proceed further without passing order on such objection. But the fall out of the above practice is this: Suppose the Trial Court, in a case, upholds a particular objection and excludes the material from being admitted in evidence and then proceeds with the trial and disposes of the case finally. If the Appellate or Revisional Court, when the same question is re-canvassed, could take a different view on the admissibility of that material in such cases the Appellate Court would be deprived of the benefit of that evidence, because that was not put on record by the Trial Court. In such a situation the Higher Court may have to send the case back to the Trial Court for recording that evidence and then to dispose of the case afresh. Why should the trial prolong like that unnecessarily on account of practices created by ourselves. Such practices, when realised through the course of long period to be hindrances which impede steady and swift progress of trial proceedings, must be recast or re-moulded to give way for better substitutes which would help acceleration of trial proceedings. 14. When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this : Whenever an objection is raised during evidence taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the Trial Court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the Court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the Court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed.) 15. The above procedure, if followed, will have two advantages. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the Court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed.) 15. The above procedure, if followed, will have two advantages. First is that the time in the Trial Court, during evidence taking stage, would not be wasted on account of raising such objections and the Court can continue to examine the witnesses. The witnesses need not wait for long hours, if not days. Second is that the Superior Court, when the same objection is re-canvassed and reconsidered in appeal or revision against the final judgment of the Trial Court, can determine the correctness of the view taken by the Trial Court regarding that objection, without bothering to remit the case to the Trial Court again for fresh disposal. We may also point out that this measure would not cause any prejudice to the parties to the litigation and would not add to their misery or expenses. 16. We, therefore, make the above as a procedure to be followed by the Trial Courts whenever an objection is raised regarding the admissibility of any material or any item of oral evidence." 6. The above decision, though arising under a criminal case, was consistently quoted with approval by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in subsequent reported decisions i.e., State v. Navjot Sandhu, (2003) 6 SCC 641 and Dhanpat v. Sheo Ram, (2020) 16 SCC 209 . However, it was opined that the above decision would not be applicable regarding objections on relevancy of questions in the course of examination of witnesses so that irrelevant and vague questions are brought into record by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies In re, (2021) 10 SCC 598 . However, as regards the admissibility and relevancy of the documents, the above quoted judgment holds good. 7. The trap of interlocutory adjudication regarding admissibility and relevancy of documents would become breeding grounds to the party with a weak defense and better placed if the disposal of the suit is delayed. Such interlocutory adjudications should therefore be avoided for swift disposal of the suit. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court is set aside and the relevancy of the documents in question is to be decided while hearing final arguments in the suit. Such interlocutory adjudications should therefore be avoided for swift disposal of the suit. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court is set aside and the relevancy of the documents in question is to be decided while hearing final arguments in the suit. As the suit is of the year 2014 and as 10 years have lapsed, the Trial Court shall endeavor to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. 8. The civil revision petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.