Director Kalakshetra Foundation vs M. Lakshmi

R. Mala, J.—Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 11.09.2014 in I.A. No. 12964 of 2014 in O.S. No. 5950 of 2013 on the file of the XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

At the time of admission, argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is heard in length.

The respondents 1 to 3 herein as the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the first defendant from entering and using the suit schedule land for parking their vehicles and allow their visitors without written permission from the plaintiffs and also for mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to dismantle/demolish the stone wall structure at the entrance of the suit schedule land which is blocking the free access to the land for carrying out maintenance work.

The first defendant filed the written statement and contested the same. At the time of examination of P.W.1, the plaintiffs came forward with an application in I.A. No. 12964 of 2014 under Order 13 Rule 2 of C.P.C. for reception of provisional patta as additional document. The trial Court, after hearing both sides, allowed the application, against which, the present revision petition is preferred by the first defendant in the suit.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has raised the following two points for consideration.

(i) The provision of Order 13 Rule 2 of C.P.C. has been already deleted from C.P.C. after amendment in the year 2002, so the plaintiffs quoted wrong provision of law.

(ii) The plaintiffs sought for reception of provisional patta as additional document, which was not pleaded in the plaint''s pleadings and hence, it cannot be received and marked as document.

To substantiate his arguments, he relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in K. Kasturi and Others Vs. C. Mohan, C. Somasundaram and C. Loganathan, ;

Considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the typed set of papers.

The respondents 1 to 3 herein as the plaintiffs filed the suit for the following reliefs:

(a) Permanent injunction for restraining the first defendant Kalashetra Foundation from entering and using the suit schedule land for parking their vehicles and allow their visitors without the written permission from the plaintiffs;

(b) Mandatory injunction there by directing the first defendant to dismantle/demolish the stone wall structure at the entrance of the suit schedule land which is blocking the free access to the land for carrying out maintenance work;

(c) for the costs;

In the plaint, it was stated that originally the suit property was owned by Maheshwari Ammal, who is the mother of the plaintiffs and she purchased the property on 26.02.1959 and she died on 12.02.1990 and her husband predeceased her. So the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 3 herein succeeded the property and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. Now some of the properties have been used by the first defendant by parking vehicles, so the plaintiffs after issuance of notice, filed the suit for the above said reliefs.

The revision petitioner/second defendant filed the written statement stating that the suit property belongs to the Kalashetra Foundation and the patta also stands in their name and that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 13 Rule 2 of C.P.C. for the following relief:

to receive the additional document (i.e.) provisional patta dated April 1961 issued by the settlement officer, Kancheepuram in respect of land in S. No. 173/5 part of the suit property in O.S. No. 5950/2013.

It is pertinent to note that at the time of filing the suit, sale deed, death certificate of Maheshwari, Encumbrance Certificate and legal notice to the first defendant were filed. The disputed document (i.e.) provisional patta copy was not filed at the time of filing the suit. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the application for condonation of delay to receive the provisional patta. Admittedly, after amendment of C.P.C. in the year 2002, Order 13 Rule 2 provision is deleted. However, there is a specific provision under Order VII Rule 14 of C.P.C. to condone the delay for reception of the document.

It is well settled dictum of the Apex Court that quoting the wrong provision is not a ground for rejecting the reception of additional document. In such circumstances, the first limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the quoting of wrong provision is a ground for dismissal, does not merit acceptance.

The second limb of argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the provisional patta, which was sought to be marked as additional document, was alleged to be issued on April 1961, but there is no averment in the plaint in respect of issuance of patta and all of a sudden, the plaintiffs came forward with the application for reception of additional document, so the same cannot be marked.

At this juncture, learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court reported in K. Kasturi and Others Vs. C. Mohan, C. Somasundaram and C. Loganathan, and submits that the documents sought to be filed are not supported by the pleadings, it is open to the revision petitioner to raise objection to the document being marked as exhibits. In para-14, it is held as follows:

Coming to the last contention that the documents sought to be filed are not supported by the pleadings, I am of the view that it is always open to the revision petitioners to object to the documents being marked as exhibits, if they have any valid ground to do so, at the appropriate stage.

The stage at which an opposition to the marking of documents as exhibits could be made, has not yet come. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the order of the trial Court in allowing the application for receipt of additional documents. Hence the civil revision petition is dismissed.

In the above decision, it was specifically mentioned that the revision petitioner has every right to raise an objection before the trial Court. But the above decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case on hand, the respondents herein are claiming title on the basis of the sale deed dated 26.02.1959. It is true, there is no pleadings in the plaint in respect of issuance of patta.

On perusal of the typed set of papers, it reveals that in the plaint, the plaintiffs not only filed the sale deed dated 26.02.1959 purchased by Maheshwari, they also filed encumbrance certificate to show that there is no encumbrance on the suit property. Whereas the revision petitioner herein has stated in the written statement that they are in possession and enjoyment of the property, patta also stands in their name. But patta is not a title of the document. It is pertinent to note that in the year 1959, Maheswari/mother of the plaintiffs purchased the suit property and the provisional patta was issued on April 1961. In such circumstances, argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that without pleading in the plaint, the plaintiffs cannot seek reception of additional document, does not merit acceptance. The trial Court in para-8 of its order, rightly considered that by receiving a document, the valuable rights of the first defendant will not be deprived off.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that without pleadings in the plaint, no evidence can be let in. There is no quarrel over the proposition. As already stated that the plaintiffs are claiming title on the basis of the sale deed which was registered in the year 1959 and the provisional patta was issued on April 1961. In such circumstances, issuance of patta, which was not pleaded in the plaint will not be a bar to file the provisional patta before the Court and the patta is issued for proving the possession.

As per the decision of the Apex Court reported in Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, , admissibility and reliability of document can be decided only at the time of pronouncing judgment not now.

Considering the aforestated circumstances of the case along with the above decision, I am of the view, the impugned order passed by the trial Court does not warrant any interference and it is hereby confirmed. I do not find any merits in the revision petition and it is hereby dismissed. The trial Court shall pass an appropriate order in the suit on merits without influenced by any of the findings made by this Court.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed after confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 11.09.2014 in I.A. No. 12964 of 2014 in O.S. No. 5950 of 2013 on the file of the XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.