Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 214 (TS)

Bhavsing (died per LRs) v. Namratha

2025-04-02

C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

body2025
ORDER : C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, challenging the orders dated 27.03.2024 passed in I.A.Nos.69, 70 and 71 of 2024 in O.S.No.19 of 2010 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit vide O.S.No.19 of 2010 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, at Vikarabad, seeking declaration of title and consequential injunction against the respondents/defendants in respect of land admeasuring Ac.5-00 gts in Sy.No.237 situated at Pudur Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (now Vikarabad District). While the said suit is at the stage of arguments, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.69 of 2024 under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC seeking to receive the documents i.e, certified copies of registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.2206/2019, 2648/2019 and 2649/2019, all dated 13.05.2019 on record; I.A.No.70 of 2024 under Section 151 of CPC seeking to reopen the evidence of PW.1 for further marking of documents and I.A.No.71 of 2024 to recall the evidence of PW.1 for further marking of documents. The trial Court vide separate orders dated 27.03.2024 dismissed the said applications. Challenging the same, the present revisions are filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Sy.No.237 in Pudur Village, originally numbered as Sy.No.390 was a Government land admeasuring about Ac.40-00 gts and the same was assigned to about 8 individuals, wherein the petitioner No.1/plaintiff No.1 was assigned land to an extent of Ac.5.00 gts in Sy.No.390 (now Sy.No.237), vide Proceedings No. D1/309/62. It is stated that the Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land Records, Vikarabad, conducted survey of the said land and demarcated with specific boundaries on 17.11.2006. It is submitted that when the respondents/defendants tried to encroach the property belonging to the petitioners, under the guise of interim order passed in O.S.No.51 of 2007 for lands in Sy.Nos.235/1 and 235/2, the subject suit vide O.S.No.19 of 2010 was filed seeking declaration of title and consequential injunction. It is further submitted that the respondents/defendants filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and claimed that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 were the owners of lands in Sy.Nos.235/1 and 235/2 which were assigned to them along with some other patta lands of the defendant No.3. It is further submitted that the respondents/defendants filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and claimed that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 were the owners of lands in Sy.Nos.235/1 and 235/2 which were assigned to them along with some other patta lands of the defendant No.3. Pending trial, the defendant No.3 sold lands in Sy.Nos.145, 235 and 236 under registered sale deeds wherein the southern portion of the property is shown as Sy.No.237. It is submitted that during the cross-examination of DW.1, when a suggestion was put to him with regard to execution of registered sale deeds vide document Nos.2206/2019, 2648/2019 and 2649/2019, all dated 13.05.2019 by his father, he denied the same and stated that he does not know whether Survey No.237 is situated at Pudur Village and he also does not know whether in the Sale Deed executed by defendant No.3 in favour of Nabeel Hussain in respect of land in Survey No.236, the Southern boundary is mentioned as land in Survey No.237. It is contended that the application filed by the petitioners seeking to receive certified copies of the said registered sale deeds, was erroneously dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the said documents do not pertain to the suit property and that the defendant No.1 had pleaded ignorance of the said documents executed by defendant No.3. It is submitted that the purpose of bringing the documents on record was to show that as per the defendants documents itself Sy.No.237 is existing and defendant No.3 had executed the sale deeds showing Sy.No.237 as the southern boundary but the trial Court without considering the said facts, erroneously dismissed the subject applications. Thus the learned counsel prayed this Court to set aside the impugned orders and allow the present Civil Revision Petitions as prayed for. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied on the decisions in Subash Chander vs. Bhagwan Yadav , [MANU/DE/3343/2009] and Bada Bodaiah vs. Bada Lingaswamy , [2002 Law Suit (AP) 986] 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents relying on the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2/ defendant No.2 has submitted that the respondent No.2 is not aware about the execution of registered sale deeds by his father in favour of Nabeel Hussain and as such he (DW1) stated in his cross- examination that he does not know the said sale transactions. It is further submitted that the subject suit vide O.S.No.19 of 2010 is filed seeking declaration of title and consequential injunction in respect of land admeasuring Ac.5-00 gts in Survey No.237, whereas the proposed documents which were executed subsequent to the filing of the suit relate to the lands in Sy.Nos.145/2, 235/1 and 236 and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to bring on record the proposed documents. It is also submitted that there is no specific pleading as to how the proposed documents are relevant to the present suit proceedings. Further, there is abnormal delay in filing the application to receive the proposed documents on record and only to drag on the proceedings of the suit, the subject applications are filed by the petitioners. It is further submitted that the trial Court has rightly held that merely because the defendant No.2 denied or pleaded ignorance of execution of proposed documents by the defendant No.3, that by itself cannot be a ground to grant leave to the petitioners to file those documents, more particularly when they are not relevant to the case on hand. Thus the learned counsel prayed this Court to dismiss the revision petitions. 5. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. 6. A perusal of the impugned order dated 27.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.69 of 2024 in O.S. No.19 of 2010 by the trial Court would show that the I.A.No.69 of 2024 was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title and consequential injunction in respect of land admeasuring Ac.5-00 gts in Survey No.237 situated at Pudur Village and Mandal, but the petitioners sought to mark the certified copies of Registered Sale Deeds vide document Nos.2206, 2648, and 2649 of 2019 in respect of different property, for which, there was no reference or pleading in the plaint. It is also observed by the trial Court that the said documents are post-dated to the suit proceedings and therefore, they are irrelevant to the present case. The petitioners sought to introduce the said documents in response to DW1’s statement of ignorance regarding sale deeds executed by defendant No.3 in favour of Nabeel Hussain pertaining to Survey No.236, mentioning Survey No.237 as a boundary. The petitioners sought to introduce the said documents in response to DW1’s statement of ignorance regarding sale deeds executed by defendant No.3 in favour of Nabeel Hussain pertaining to Survey No.236, mentioning Survey No.237 as a boundary. It was observed by the trial Court that DW1 is neither a party to the said document nor an attesting witness to the sale deeds. Mere denial or ignorance in the evidence of DW1 in respect of certain documents, do not constitute sufficient ground to permit to file the said documents as exhibits that too when evidence was closed. Thus the trial Court observing that the documents sought to be filed are not relevant, dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners vide impugned orders dated 27.03.2024. 7. Rule 14 of Order VII of CPC as it stood prior to 1.7.2002 reads as under: 1. Where a plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power, he shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented, and shall at the same time deliver the document or a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint. List of other documents: where he relies on any other documents (whether in his possession or power or not) as evidence in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list to be added or annexed to the plaint." 8. The above said provision was substituted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment Act) 1999 and after amendment, it reads as under: 1. Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. 2. Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall wherever possible state in whose possession or power it is. 3 Where a document or a copy thereof is not filed with the plaint under this rule, it shall not be allowed to be received in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff at the hearing of the suit. 4. 3 Where a document or a copy thereof is not filed with the plaint under this rule, it shall not be allowed to be received in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff at the hearing of the suit. 4. Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. 9. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order VII was again amended vide Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 22 of 2002) and the following sub-rule (3) was inserted: “A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.” 10. The CPC (Amendment) Act, 2002 came into force with effect from 1.7.2002. The law as it stands requires a plaintiff who relies or sues upon a document and who is in possession of such a document to enter such a document in a list and shall produce it in the Court when the plaint is presented. If the document is not in possession or power of the plaintiff, the law requires the plaintiff to state in whose possession or power the document is. If the document which ought to be produced when the plaint is presented or a document which ought to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint is not produced or entered accordingly, no such document shall be received in evidence on his behalf on hearing of the suit unless prior leave of the Court is obtained. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 as it stood prior to the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 totally denied the opportunity to the plaintiff to produce any document to be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 as it stood prior to the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 totally denied the opportunity to the plaintiff to produce any document to be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. But the harshness of the provision was taken away by Section 8(i)(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 by substituting a new sub-rule (3) according to which in a given case with the leave of the Court a document can be produced in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff which was not earlier annexed or produced at the time of presenting the plaint. 11. Even after amendment of Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC, the trial Court is vested with the discretion whether or not to permit the plaintiff to produce evidence on his behalf on the hearing of the suit. Further, as per sub-rule (2) of Order XIII CPC as it stood prior to Amendment Act, 1999, the documentary evidence which is not produced at or before settlement of issues shall not be received at any subsequent stage of proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for the non production of the documents at the time of settlement of issues. Rules 1 and 2 of Order XIII were substituted by Rule 1 of Order XIII of the Amendment Act, 1999 which reads as under: The parties or their pleader shall produce on or before the settlement of issues all the documentary evidence in original where the copies thereof have been filed along with plaint or written statement, (2) The Court shall receive the documents so produced: Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in such form as the High Court directs. (3) Nothing in Sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents- (a) produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party; or (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. 12. A reading of Rule 1 of Order XIII alone would show that the Court shall receive the documents produced on or before the settlement of issues if the copies thereof have been filed along with the plaint or written statement. The Court has no power to receive the documents produced subsequently. 12. A reading of Rule 1 of Order XIII alone would show that the Court shall receive the documents produced on or before the settlement of issues if the copies thereof have been filed along with the plaint or written statement. The Court has no power to receive the documents produced subsequently. Further, sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order VII empowers the Court to give permission or leave to the plaintiff to produce documents at a subsequent stage of hearing of the suit. Order XIII Rule 1 and Order VII Rule 14 (3) have to be read together harmoniously. Reading 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. 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. Non-mentioning of the documents sought to be produced at the subsequent stage is a curable defect. With leave of Court, under sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of Order VII read with sub-rule (1) of Order XIII the documents can be received even at the time of trial. Order VII Rule 14(3) being an exception to the rule in Order VII Rule 14(1) as well as Order XII Rule 1(1)(2), the power to receive the documents as exhibits must be exercised in rare cases and not in a routine manner, particularly, when the cases were posted for hearing/arguments. It is incumbent on the part of plaintiff to produce in Court the documents, which are basis for his claim when the plaint is filed. 13. It is settled law that mere omission to mention the documents in the plaint or subsequent incidental or supplemental proceedings, does not affect the power of the Court to grant leave to produce the documents at subsequent stage. 13. It is settled law that mere omission to mention the documents in the plaint or subsequent incidental or supplemental proceedings, does not affect the power of the Court to grant leave to produce the documents at subsequent stage. There is no dispute that non-mentioning of the documents sought to be produced at the subsequent stage is a curable defect and the Courts are having power but when the said documents are not existing at the time of institution of the suit itself and when the same are not having any bearing, no discretion is vested on the Court to receive the documents under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC. 14. In the instant case, admittedly, the proposed documents sought to be received in evidence, did not exist as on the date of institution of the suit. It is nobody’s imagination that the documents executed subsequently will have bearing on the suit instituted much prior to the execution of the documents. It is not the case of the petitioners that the proposed documents were existing as on the date of institution of the suit and they came to know about those documents subsequent to the institution of the suit. No doubt, the legislators in their wisdom taking into consideration the documents which were not filed with the plaint as list of documents and as the earlier Rule before amendment was having complete embargo on the power of the Court and as the provisions that stood prior to the amendment of CPC, 2002 found too harsh, amended the Order VII Rule 14 of CPC by inserting sub- rule (3) vide CPC Amendment Act, 2002 w.e.f. 01.07.2002. In view of the amendment, any document may be received in evidence with the leave of the Court. This does not mean that the documents can be received in evidence which are not existing as on the date of institution of the suit. Further, it is also settled law that in the absence of any pleadings with regard to relevancy and admissibility of the documents, which are foundation for framing of issues before proceeding with the trial, such documents cannot be allowed to come on record, as it amounts to introducing a new case beyond the scope of relief sought in the plaint. Further, it is also settled law that in the absence of any pleadings with regard to relevancy and admissibility of the documents, which are foundation for framing of issues before proceeding with the trial, such documents cannot be allowed to come on record, as it amounts to introducing a new case beyond the scope of relief sought in the plaint. The issue involved in this case is with regard to declaration of rights in respect of land in Sy.No.237 and in the suit schedule property, the boundaries have already been specified. The trial Court which is conferred with the power under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC, by taking into consideration about the relevancy and admissibility of the proposed documents, has rightly exercised its discretion in dismissing the applications filed by the petitioners. The decisions cited by the petitioners are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the cases on hand. In view of the above circumstances, there is no illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned orders dated 27.03.2024 passed by the trial Court warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petitions are devoid of merits and the same are liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Civil Revision Petitions, shall stand closed. No costs.