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
Print Page