C. Ramachandra Reddy vs Anitha R. and Others

N. Kumar, J.

The defendant has preferred this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Trial Court allowing the applications for production of documents and also for amendment of the plaint.

The grievance of the petitioner is, as per the schedule in the plaint, defendant''s property is not shown adjoining the plaintiffs property. The suit is one for declaration or mandatory injunction and for other consequential reliefs. The issues are framed. Plaintiff has closed his side and plaintiff has commenced his evidence. At that stage, these applications are filed. In support of the application for production of document, relevancy of the documents produced are not set out. In the application filed for amendment, the averment sought to be made by way of amendment that, the defendants have encroached upon the plaintiffs property, runs counter to the schedule in the suit. Further, in Schedule ''B'' they want to amend stating that "to the north, i.e., the property of the 1st defendant". Therefore, the petitioner/defendant No. 1 submitted that no amendment could be allowed after the trial has commenced. The Trial Court without properly appreciating the evidence on record and the objections raised, has allowed this application. He seeks to set-aside the said order.

The learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order insofar as allowing of the applications is concerned.

The documents sought to be produced are certified copies of two registered Sale deeds. The 1st document is of the year 1937, under which the 1st defendant is said to have acquired title. It shows the extent of land owned by the vendor of the 1st defendant. The second document is the document, under which he acquired title to the property. The case of the plaintiff is, the 1st defendant''s vendor was the owner of only 6 ankanas as is clear from the 1937 document whereas in the sale deed, in addition to 6 ankanas, he has sold property measuring 15 ft. X 45'' ft. of which he is not the owner. The case being one for declaration and mandatory injunction, on the ground of encroachment, the documents are necessary. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for production of documents, the plaintiff submits that she was not aware of some of the documents, which were misplaced and they were traced recently and some of the documents were obtained recently from the concerned departments. Therefore, those documents are necessary for adjudicating the rights between the parties.

No doubt the suit is filed in the year 2006. The plaintiff could have obtained those documents from the Sub-Registrar''s, office and produced it. Nevertheless, the documents which are sought to be produced are all documents pertaining to the defendant. The title of his vendor is the title, which he has acquired, mutation entries are changed in his favour. He should have produced those documents. Of course, he cannot be compelled. The plaintiff is producing the document at a subsequent stage, which it cannot be said that the documents are not necessary for deciding the case. When the Trial Judge, in his discretion has allowed the application, I do not see any justification to interfere with such a discretionary order, which is just and no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.

Insofar as the amendment application is concerned, as set out above, no new facts are stated. Both the plaintiff and 1st defendant are claiming title to the property. They cannot claim title beyond what is contained in the document. The Court has to look into the contents of the title deeds. There may be some errors in description of the boundaries. All that will go to the background when registered documents are looked into and the boundaries mentioned therein are looked into. Therefore, if the Court finds that such a plea is to be allowed and the documents are required, the approach cannot be found fault with. In that view of the matter, here again, I do not see any justification to exercise the power under Article 226 of Constitution of India, in fact when justice have been done.

However, in spite of the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure making it obligatory on the part of the plaintiffs and defendants to submit the documents along with the pleadings, applications are filed throughout the trial. The very object of amendment brought about is defeated. May be when Advocates are brought up in a particular atmosphere for more than 30 years, parties are yet to understand the seriousness of these matters, but at some stage, we have to put an end to this. Similarly, in the case of amendment applications, now there is an impediment for allowing amendment applications as a matter of course after commencement of the trial, but still we find applications are being filed at some time after conclusion of the trial. The amendments are not taken seriously both by the members of the bar as well as the Bench. This State of affairs cannot continue any longer.

In this case, I am declining to interfere with the order because the Trial Court, in its discretion has allowed the application and is doing justice between the parties, when the Advocates have not done their jobs. When registered documents are made available where proper boundaries are mentioned, it cannot be found fault with. At the same time it should be made known that such things will not be continued any longer and even now for the latches and delay on their part in raising proper pleadings at the earliest point of time and not producing the documents, they have to pay heavy cost. Therefore, both the writ petitions are dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each, to be paid by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant before taking part in the further proceedings. Only, on payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) the plaintiff shall be permitted to prosecute this matter. Accordingly, writ petitions are dismissed.