Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 608 (AP)

Pillela Kameswara Rao S/o Krishnaiah v. Atmakuru Vijaya Lakshmi W/o Janardhan

2025-04-17

K.SREENIVASA REDDY

body2025
ORDER : K Sreenivasa Reddy, J. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order, dated 13.08.2024, in I.A.No.763 of 2024 in O.S.No.287 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to receive document viz. original discharge receipt dated 08.03.2020 executed by the respondent/plaintiff in favour of the petitioner/defendant, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides and perused the record. 3. Respondent/plaintiff filed Original Suit No.287 of 2020 before the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore against the petitioner/defendant, for recovery of money, basing on promissory notes. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement admitting execution of the suit promissory notes and stating inter alia that originally, he borrowed the amounts from one Madhavi and executed promissory notes in her favour, and on her request, the petitioner/defendant executed the suit promissory notes in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, and thereafter, the promissory notes executed in her favour were torn by her. It is further contended in the written statement that the petitioner/defendant discharged the entire amount to respondent/plaintiff on 08.03.2020 by paying Rs.5,40,000/-, for which the respondent/plaintiff executed a receipt therefor. A photo copy of the said receipt is filed along with the written statement. During trial of the suit, the petitioner/defendant filed the present petition, along with his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief, seeking permission to receipt original of the said receipt dated 08.03.2020, which was dismissed by the trial Court, vide the impugned order. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is factual foundation in the pleadings with regard to the receipt which now sought to be received, and a photo copy of the said document is also filed along with the written statement. He submits that the said document is essential to establish the defence of discharge taken by the petitioner/defendant, and since there is pleading with regard to the said document and a photocopy was also filed along with the written statement, he prays to receive original of the said document. 5. He submits that the said document is essential to establish the defence of discharge taken by the petitioner/defendant, and since there is pleading with regard to the said document and a photocopy was also filed along with the written statement, he prays to receive original of the said document. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that no reasons were assigned in the petition for non-production of the document at the earliest point of time, when the said document is in the custody of the petitioner, and considering the same, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff relied on the following decisions. (i) In Voruganti Narayana Rao v. B.Rammurthy & others , [ (2011) 6 ALT 299 ] wherein it is held thus: (paragraph 7) “7. Rules 1-A and 1-A(3) of Order VIII CPC, were substituted by Act 46 of 1999 with effect from 1.7.2002., The object with which those Rules were amended was to curb the phenomenal delays in the procedural aspects leading to procrastination of the proceedings before the civil Court. The Parliament has thought it fit to stipulate time limits for the parties to file their defence and produce the documents along with the defence so that the cases can be disposed of without avoidable delays. This being the avowed object with which the above noted provisions are amended, Rule 1-A(3) of Order VIII CPC, which on a literal interpretation appears to vest unlimited discretion with the Court, requires to be interpreted so as to advance the intendment of the legislation. The Court before which the defendant produced the said documents after filing of the written statement, therefore, needs to be circumspect in examining whether proper reasons are assigned by the defendant for not producing the documents along with the written statement. Unless the reasons assigned by the defendant discloses sufficient cause for his failure to produce the documents within the time stipulated in Rule 1-A of Order VIII CPC, the Court shall not permit the defendant to file such documents later. Undoubtedly, unduly liberal approach in this regard would frustrate the purpose for which the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are amended. Undoubtedly, unduly liberal approach in this regard would frustrate the purpose for which the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are amended. This Court in Ravi Satish’s case (supra), held that grant of leave by the Court is not for the mere asking nor is the Court a mere Post-Office to receive documents even in the absence of any reasons furnished for failure to file the said documents along with the written statement.” (ii) in Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. P.V.Surya Narayana, , [ (2017) 4 ALT 582 ] wherein it is held thus: (paragraph 17) “17. Coming to the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents in the case of Ravi Satish (supra 5), this Court while dealing with the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, ruled that grant of leave under this provision of law cannot be for a mere asking nor the Court is a mere post-office to receive documents even in the absence of any reasons being furnished for failure to file the said documents along with the written statement. This Court further held that having chosen not to give any reasons, it is not open to the petitioners therein to contend that the Court below should have received the documents, since the petitioner’s right could be adversely affected for failure on its part to receive the documents. This Court also took note of the aspect that admissibility and proof of documents are matters which ought not to be gone into at the time of receipt of documents. This Court further held that the leave sought for can only be granted on adequate reasons being furnished justifying failure on the part of the applicant in not filing the documents along with the written statement earlier. This Court also repelled the contention that no prejudice would be caused to the other side.” (iii) in U.Venkatramma v. V.Ravinder Reddy , [ (2019) 5 Andh. LD 210 ] , wherein it is held thus: (paragraph 10) “10. Though learned counsel for the petitioners sought to contend that grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioners, if the documents are not received in evidence, learned counsel for the petitioners did not dispute that most of these documents had been filed in O.S.No.103 of 2015 which is being tried along with the present suit. Though learned counsel for the petitioners sought to contend that grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioners, if the documents are not received in evidence, learned counsel for the petitioners did not dispute that most of these documents had been filed in O.S.No.103 of 2015 which is being tried along with the present suit. If so, the petitioners cannot say that the documents were not traceable at the time when they filed Written Statement in O.S.No.301 of 2012. It was incumbent on the part of the petitioners to file documents on which they rely along with the Written Statement filed by them. Grant of leave under Order VIII Rule 1 (A) (3) CPC is not automatic and a party, who is negligent in filing documents which are required to be filed along with the plaint/Written Statement, cannot seek such indulgence without showing sufficient cause.” (iv) in Lakshmi v. Vitta Kristappa , [ (2020) 2 ALT 364 ] , wherein it is held thus: (paragraph 17) “17. The court below having observed that there is no reference about the proposed documents either in the pleadings or in the evidence, and the ground on which the revision petitioners are prevented from filing those documents at the earliest point of time is not explained, rightly dismissed the applications filed by them. The court below has not committed any error, in my view, for rejecting the request made by the revision petitions to grant leave for receiving the proposed documents, for recall of PW 1 to confront him with those documents and to reopen the case for the said purpose, etc.” 7. Original Suit No.287 of 2020 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff before the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore against the petitioner/defendant, for recovery of money, basing on promissory notes. The petitioner/defendant in his written statement admitted execution of the suit promissory notes and stated that originally, he borrowed the amounts from one Madhavi and executed promissory notes in her favour, and on her request, the petitioner/ defendant executed the suit promissory notes in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, and thereafter, the promissory notes executed in her favour were torn by her. It is his further specific defence in the written statement that the petitioner/defendant discharged the entire amount to respondent/plaintiff on 08.03.2020 by paying Rs.5,40,000/, for which the respondent/plaintiff executed a receipt therefor. It is his further specific defence in the written statement that the petitioner/defendant discharged the entire amount to respondent/plaintiff on 08.03.2020 by paying Rs.5,40,000/, for which the respondent/plaintiff executed a receipt therefor. The petitioner/defendant filed a photo copy of the said receipt along with the written statement. However, when the original of the said receipt dated 08.03.2020 was sought to be received at the time of his evidence, the trial Court dismissed the petition vide the impugned order. 8. A perusal of the defence of petitioner/defendant in his written statement shows that he had taken a specific plea in his written statement that he repaid entire amount due to the respondent/ plaintiff under the suit promissory notes for which the respondent/ plaintiff issued a receipt dated 08.03.2020. He also filed a photocopy of the said receipt dated 08.03.2020 along with the written statement. Now, the original of the said document is sought to be received. There is factual foundation in respect of the said document sought to be received. A copy of the same is also filed along with the written statement. 9. Order VIII Rule 1 CPC stipulates that the defendant shall, within 30 days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence. Proviso to the said Rule envisages that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of 30 days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day as may be specified by the Court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, but, which shall not be later than 90 days from the date of service of summons. Order VIII Rule 1A CPC enjoins on the defendant to produce in the Court any document in his possession upon which he bases his defence or relies in support of his defense or claim for set off or counter claim. Order VIII Rule 1A (3) CPC postulates that a document which ought to be produced in the Court by the defendant under this Rule, is not so produced, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. Therefore, Rule 1A (3) of Order VIII CPC on a literal interpretation, vests unlimited discretion with the Court, which is required to be interpreted so as to advance the intendment of the legislation. Therefore, Rule 1A (3) of Order VIII CPC on a literal interpretation, vests unlimited discretion with the Court, which is required to be interpreted so as to advance the intendment of the legislation. 10. In the case on hand, the document, for production of which, leave is sought by the petitioner/defendant under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) CPC, is not a new document without there being any pleading with regard to the same in his written statement. There is specific pleading with regard to the said document i.e. receipt dated 08.03.2020, stating that the respondent/plaintiff issued the said receipt to him upon discharge of the debt under the suit promissory notes. In fact, a photo copy of the said document was filed along with the written statement. No doubt, in the petition, the petitioner/ defendant, in his affidavit filed along with the petition, did not assign proper reason for not producing the original of the said document at the inception i.e. at the time of filing written statement. However, it is not a case of non-production of the document at the earliest point of time or production of a document without there being any pleading with reference to the same, since a photostat copy of the said document was already filed along with the written statement and there is pleading to that effect in the written statement. Further more, the document is crucial and relevant for the purpose of establishing the defence taken by the defendant in the written statement, and hence, the same cannot be curtailed by rejecting to receive the said document. In the facts and circumstances of the same, the same would not, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not a ground to reject the request of the petitioner/defendant to receive the said document. Therefore, there is sufficient reason for exercising the discretion vested with the Court under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) CPC, in favour of petitioner/ defendant for receipt of the said document. However, the same is subject to admissibility and proof. Therefore, there is sufficient reason for exercising the discretion vested with the Court under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) CPC, in favour of petitioner/ defendant for receipt of the said document. However, the same is subject to admissibility and proof. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff are distinguishable on facts with the case on hand, and the same would not render any assistance to the case of the respondent/ plaintiff, as, in the case on hand, there is factual foundation for the document sought to be received and a photocopy of the said document was also filed along with the written statement. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court failed to exercise the discretion vested in it and erred in rejecting to receive the said document. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order, dated 13.08.2024, in I.A.No.763 of 2024 in O.S.No.287 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore. Consequently, I.A.No.763 of 2024 stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs of the C.R.P. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.