The revision-petitioners though stated that they referred
the documents during the cross-examination of P.W.1, did not
produce the said documents at that time, but filed the
documents when the suit is at the stage of defendants evidence
and sought the leave of the Court. As already stated above,
except the document No.6, no other document is referred in the
written statement by the revision-petitioners. No reason was also
assigned in the written statement for retaining the said
documents with the defendants at that time.{Para 11}
12. The affidavit filed by the revision-petitioners before the
Trial Court would show that documents were very much available with the defendants at the time of filing the written statement, but they did not file and now, they want to show that they retained them as they were required for taking loan from banks or getting benefits from the Government. But, no material is coming forthwith to support the same.
13. This Court in Ravi Satish and Voruganti Narayana Rao
cases (supra) held that grant of leave is not for mere asking, nor
is the Court 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.
14. In those circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere
with the Order of the Trial Court, as this Court did not find any
material irregularity in the impugned Order of the learned Trial
Court and the revision-petition is deserved to be dismissed.
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4776 of 2016
Kottakota Lakkappa Vs B.Lakkappagari Chikkaiah
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 18.08.2023
Coram: SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
Heard Ms. G.Sree Deepthi, learned counsel representing on
behalf of Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the revisionpetitioners.
2. This revision-petition is directed against the impugned
Order, dated 09.09.2016 in I.A.No.447 of 2016 in O.S.No.8 of
2011 by the defendants in the suit.
3. The application under the impugned Order was filed under
Order VIII Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for
brevity ‘CPC’) to receive the documents mentioned in the list and it appears that the said application was filed by the revision petitioners/ defendants at the stage when the suit is coming for the evidence of defendants.
4. The reason assigned by the revision-petitioners in the
affidavit is that, the documents mentioned in the list were not
filed earlier along with the written statement as they were
required for taking loans and other benefits from the Banks and
the Government and that as the suit is now coming for
defendants evidence, they are seeking the leave of the Court
under Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC to receive the documents.
5. The learned Trial Court, on considering the above
submissions made for the revision-petitioners and relying on the
Judgments of this Court in Ravi Satish vs. Edala Durga Prasad1
and Voruganti Narayana Rao vs. Bodla Rammurthy2 held that
though the defendants in possession of the said documents on
the date of filing of the written statement, they did not file the
same without assigning any reasons in the written statement.
6. In the light of above contentions, the point that would arise
for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is as under:
“Whether the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Hindupur
committed any material irregularity in its Order,
dated 09.09.2016 in I.A.No.447 of 2016 in O.S.No.8
of 2011?”
7. P O I N T: -
The learned counsel for the revision-petitioners would
contend that the said documents were not filed along with the
1 2009 (3) ALT 236.
2 2011 (6) ALT 299.
written statement as they were in the bank. It is against the
affidavit version filed before the Trial Court, whereunder it was
stated that the documents are required for taking loans.
8. It is pertinent to note down that except document No.6/
Registered Sale Deed, dated 08.10.2008 mentioned in the list
filed with the application, the other documents were neither
referred in the written statement, nor mentioned in the list of
documents filed along with the written statement. The revision petitioners in their affidavit stated that these documents are
referred in the cross-examination of P.W.1 when the suit is at the
stage of plaintiffs side evidence. It is also pertinent to note down
that the revision-petitioners did not choose to file those
documents even at that stage.
9. Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 1A of Order VIII CPC mandates that
documents ought to be produced in Court by the defendant
under this rule, but, 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.
10. Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 1A of Order VIII CPC says that nothing
in this rule shall apply to the documents produced for cross
examination of plaintiff’s witnesses; or handed over to a witness
merely to refresh his memory.
11. The revision-petitioners though stated that they referred
the documents during the cross-examination of P.W.1, did not
produce the said documents at that time, but filed the
documents when the suit is at the stage of defendants evidence
and sought the leave of the Court. As already stated above,
except the document No.6, no other document is referred in the
written statement by the revision-petitioners. No reason was also
assigned in the written statement for retaining the said
documents with the defendants at that time.
12. The affidavit filed by the revision-petitioners before the
Trial Court would show that documents were very much available
with the defendants at the time of filing the written statement,
but they did not file and now, they want to show that they
retained them as they were required for taking loan from banks
or getting benefits from the Government. But, no material is
coming forthwith to support the same.
13. This Court in Ravi Satish and Voruganti Narayana Rao
cases (supra) held that grant of leave is not for mere asking, nor
is the Court 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.
14. In those circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere
with the Order of the Trial Court, as this Court did not find any
material irregularity in the impugned Order of the learned Trial
Court and the revision-petition is deserved to be dismissed.
15. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is Dismissed at the
stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs.
16 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
18th August, 2023.
No comments:
Post a Comment