Baikadi Narsimulu vs Mamindla Manemma

Challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is to the order dated 19.02.2021 made in I.A.No.12 of 2021 in I.A.No.413 of 2017 in O.S.No.12 of 2017 on

the file of the Court of the IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Siddipet, wherein and whereby the trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the

petitioners under Order 8 Rule 1 A (3) r/w Section 151 CPC to condone the delay in filing the documents and to receive the same.

2 The facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the respondent filed the above suit for a preliminary decree and final decree for partition and separate

possession of the suit schedule properties into thirty six shares by appointing a Commissioner and allot seven shares to her. In the said suit the

petitioners herein filed their written statement stating that there are four civil suits viz., O.S.Nos.82, 83, 84 and 85 of 2004, pending before the Court of

the Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule properties and that they are parties to the said suit. They further

stated that they filed documents in the said suits and that the documents are necessary for proper adjudication. Hence the petition.

3 The respondent filed her counter contending that the suit was filed in the year 2017 and the petitioners filed their written statement on 24.01.2018

and that the petitioners ought to have filed the documents along with their written statement. The petitioners did not file the documents along with the

subject documents along with the written statement or with counter in I.A.No.413 of 2017, therefore, the documents now filed by the petitioners

cannot be received as no proper reasons were assigned for non-filing of the documents along with the written statement. Hence prayed to dismiss the

petition.

4 The trial Court after affording a reasonable opportunity to both parties, dismissed the petition. Hence the present Civil Revision Petition.

5 Sri M. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside since the petitioners have shown a

bona fide cause that several suits are pending in which even the respondent herein is also a party and that the subject documents were filed in the said

suits. He further submitted that under Order XIII CPC the original documents shall be produced at the time of settlement of issues and in the case on

hand no issues were framed, yet the trial Court has not considered the said aspect. He relied on the ratio laid in Sugandhi (dead) by L.Rs and another

V. P. Rajkumar 2021 (1) ALD (SC).

6 For the purpose of deciding the issue involved in this Civil Revision Petition, this court feels it apt to extract Order 8 Rule 1 A (3) CPC which reads

as under:

1A. Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him.-

(1) Where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or

claim for set off or counter claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in court when the written statement is presented by him

and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement.

(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.

(3) A document which 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.

(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to documentsâ€

(a) produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, or

(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.

7 From the above provision of law, it is manifest that if the defendant is basing his defence upon a document, he shall produce the same before the

court along with the written statement or if he is not in possession of the said document, he shall at least state in whose possession the said document

is.

8 As seen from the entire record, it is to be seen that the trial Court in its impugned order observed that there is no whisper about the pendency of the

civil suits in the written statement. Though the petitioners referred about the Will deed and family settlement in the written statement filed by them but

they failed to file those documents at the time of filing of the written statement or at the time of filing of the counter in I.A.No.413 of 2017. The

petitioners have not assigned convincing reasons in whose custody the alleged documents are at the initial stage. So after lapse of four years now the

petitioners cannot plead that they reserved right to file the documents during the course of trial. As per the provision of law, extracted above, the

defendant at least state in whose possession or power the said document is lying. So as per the provision of law, if a document is to be produced by a

defendant, the same is to be produced along with the written statement. Subsequent production of the document can only be done if the court is

satisfied with the ground explained for non-production of such document at the time of filing of the written statement.

9 The petitioners have not put forth any reasons much less convincing reasons as to what prevented them from not filing the documents all these years

though they filed their written statement in January 2018. Therefore, without assigning the reasons for non-filing of the documents along with the

written statement and without mentioning in whose custody those documents were all these years, the plea of the petitioners cannot be countenanced.

The trial Court has gone into all these aspects in right perspective and has rightly dismissed the petition. I see no ground much less valid and

convincing ground to interfere with the impugned order.

10 The facts of the Sugandhi case (1 supra) are different from the facts of the case on hand. In the said case, documents were misplaced and were

traced only when they were sought to be produced. But in the case on hand, the petitioners seem to have knowledge about the documents lying with

other suits in a different court. But they have not stated the said fact in their written statement. Therefore, Sugandhi case (1 supra) is not applicable to

the case on hand.

11 The petitioners have not given the details of documents and details of the suits in which they were filed and when they obtained the documents is

also silent. The petitioners have not approached the Court with clean hands. They are not entitled for the relief prayed. The order of the trial Court is a

well considered and reasoned order.

12 For all the above reasons, this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit.

13 In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 19.02.2021 made in I.A.No.12 of 2021 in I.A.No.413 of 2017 in

O.S.No.12 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Siddipet. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any,

pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall also stand dismissed.