Burri Vijaya Reddy And Another vs M.A.Farooq And 2 Others

Heard Mr. P. Sudheer Rao, learned counsel representing Mrs. K.  Udaya  Sri,  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioners  and  Mr.  K. Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.

Lis involved in all the three revisions is one and the same and the parties are also common and, therefore, all the revisions are heard together and they are being decided by way of common order.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

i) The petitioners herein have filed a suit vide O.S. No.12 of 2013 against the respondents herein for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents - defendants, their agents and men permanently from interfering with the possession of the petitioners - plaintiffs over the suit schedule plot viz., Plot No.4, admeasuring 340 square yards in Survey No.53, situated at Badepally Sivar of Jadcherla, Mahabubnagar District.

ii) During pendency of the said suit, the petitioners herein had filed three interlocutory applications viz., I.A. No.73 of 2022 filed under Section - 151 of CPC to reopen the case; I.A. No.74 of 2022 filed under Order - XVIII, Rule - 17 of CPC to recall PW.1 for the purpose of marking certain documents and I.A. No.75 of 2022 filed under Order - VII, Rule - 14 of CPC for permission to file certified copies of registered sale deed bearing document Nos.400 of 1988; 97 of 1983; 1551 of 1988 and 216 of 1990 respectively.

iii) The petitioners herein had filed the aforesaid applications on the following grounds:

a) They have filed a suit for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property;

b) Initially, they had engaged Mr. Neeli Narsappa and Mr. Govardhan Reddy as their counsel;

c) Mr. Govardhan Reddy died recently;

d) The file has been entrusted to Mr. G. Hanmanthu, learned advocate;

e) To localize the suit schedule property as per the advise of their counsel, they had obtained certified copies of the registered sale deed bearing document Nos.400 of 1988; 97 of 1983; 1551 of 1988 and 216 of 1990 respectively.

f) Thus, the aforesaid documents are public documents obtained by them in the month of December, 2021;

g) The said documents are material documents to support their case.

iv) With the said contentions, they sought to reopen the case, to recall PW.1 for purpose of marking the said documents and to permit them to file the aforesaid documents.

v) The aforesaid petitions were opposed by the respondents stating that the suit land is in Survey No.51, but the petitioners shown the same as part of land admeasuring 676.96 square yards in Survey No.53. A suit vide O.S. No.15 of 2013 pending on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, filed by respondent No.1 herein against the petitioners and others in respect of the suit property.

vi) A suit vide O.S. No.105 of 1991 filed by one Mr. Golkonda Babu Rao along with 2 others against one Mrs. Thota Narsamma and others in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0.14 guntas in Survey No.53 by showing the property as plot Nos.1, and 3 and some remaining land as part of that Ac.0.14 guntas. The said suit was transferred to the Junior Civil Judge, Jadcherla and it was renumbered as O.S. No.216 of 1996.

vii) Mrs. Thota Narsamma is, in fact, original owner of land in Survey No.51 and she is the predecessor-in-title of respondent No.1. The said Golkonda Baburao claimed that Ac.0.14 guntas of land as protected tenant and as part of Ac.0.15 guntas of land and that protected tenants had sold Ac.0.14 guntas to him on 20.06.1983 itself.

viii) O.S. No.216 of 1996 was dismissed on merits on 31.07.1997, and an appeal suit vide A.S. No.44 of 1997 was preferred and the said appeal was also dismissed on 20.04.1996. The appellate Court had given a clear finding that original owners had no land left to give it to tenants and rejected the case of Mrs. Thota Narsamma and others.

ix) Even then, the petitioners herein had filed the above suit and the present interlocutory applications to re-open the case by recalling PW.1 and receiving the aforesaid documents without mentioning sufficient cause and only to drag on the proceedings.

All the aforesaid three interlocutory applications were dismissed by learned I Additional District Judge holding Full Additional Charge of VII Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar by order dated 08.03.2022, on the following grounds:

a) The suit is of the year 2013;

b) Plaintiffs’ evidence was closed on 11.10.2018

c) Defendants’ evidence was closed on 14.03.2019;

d) An Advocate-commissioner was appointed to localize the suit site. He had inspected the suit site and filed his report. He was also examined as CW.1 at length;

e) The matter is posted for arguments;

f) Deposition of PW.1, cross-examination of DW.1 and deposition of CW.1 (Advocate-commissioner) show that there is no whisper with regard to the aforesaid documents, no question was put either to DW.1 in his cross-examiantion, nor there is reference to the aforesaid documents in the chief-examination of PW.1;

g) Even in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, except stating that the documents sought to be filed are material documents, no reasons were assigned for non-filing of those documents along with pleadings;

h) There is no explanation with regard to the relevancy of such documents;

i) It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the documents sought to be filed would be useful to localize the suit site, but he is not going to request for re-entrustment of warrant to the advocate-commissioner; and

j) Therefore, there is no explanation by the petitioners herein as to the relevancy of the said documents so as to come to a right conclusion by the Court below.

Challenging the said orders, the petitioners - plaintiffs filed the present revisions.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:

i) Mr. P. Sudheer Rao, learned counsel representing Mrs. K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the Court below failed to consider the contentions raised by the petitioners that the said documents are relevant for the purpose of deciding the suit. The documents can be filed at any time. Dismissal of the above said applications is depriving a party to the suit not to file documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice. In support of the same, he has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Levaku Pedda Reddamma v. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 533.

ii) He would also submit that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents in the event of allowing the aforesaid three applications, and on the other hand, they will be given an opportunity of cross-examination of PW.1 to disprove such documents.

iii) Without considering the said contentions, the Court below had dismissed the aforesaid applications erroneously and, therefore, he sought to allow the revisions.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:

On the other hand, Mr. K. Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents, would submit that the petitioners herein failed to explain the relevancy of the said documents and the delay in filing the said documents and, therefore, the Court below had rightly dismissed the said applications by giving reasons. They are reasoned orders and do not warrant interference by this Court.

ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:

i) As stated above, the petitioners herein had filed a suit vide O.S. No.12 of 2013 for perpetual injunction. According to them, the suit land is in Survey No.53. The suit is of the year 2013. The evidence of plaintiffs’ was closed on 11.10.2018, while the defendants on 14.03.2019.

ii) Perusal of the affidavits filed in support of the aforesaid applications, there is no mention about the relevancy of the said documents sought to be filed and marked and no explanation with regard to the delay caused in filing the said documents. There is no dispute that it is settled principle of law that rules of procedure are handmaid of justice and, therefore, even if there is some delay, the trial Court has to receive the documents to be filed by the parties to come to a just conclusion and in the event of delay, Court has to impose certain costs. Court cannot decline production of documents itself.

iii) At the same time, it is the duty of the parties to file documents at the relevant point of time and if there is delay, he/she has to explain such delay properly. The parties have to explain relevancy of documents sought to be filed.

vi) Whereas, in the case on case on hand, as rightly observed by the Court below, the petitioners herein have not explained the delay in filing the petitions and also failed to explain the relevancy of documents sought to be filed and received. The only reason is change of advocate and localization of suit site. As discussed above, at the instance of the petitioners, the Court below has appointed an Advocate-Commissioner who in turn, had executed the warrant of commission and submitted his report. Even he was examined as CW.1 and cross-examined at length. Therefore, the Court below had considered all the said aspects and dismissed all the aforesaid three applications vide orders, dated 08.03.2022. The said orders are reasoned orders and there is no error in the said orders warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its Superintendence powers under Article – 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the petitioners failed to make out any ground to allow the revisions and accordingly all the revisions are liable to be dismissed.

CONCLUSION:

i) In view of the above discussion, all the above three Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed confirming the order dated 08.03.2022 passed by the Court below in I.A. Nos.73, 74 and 75 of 2022 in O.S. No.12 of 2013.

ii) In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the revision shall stand closed.