Waheeda Begum VsMd. Yakub

1 All these Civil Revision Petitions are filed aggrieved by the common order dated 05.10.2020 passed in I.A.Nos.535 of 2020, 536 of 2020 and 537 of 2020 in O.S.no.450 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad wherein and whereby the trial Court dismissed the above I.As filed by the petitioners / plaintiffs seeking to recall P.W.1, to grant leave for receiving four documents and to reopen the evidence of P.W.1 for adducing further evidence respectively.

2 Heard Sri K.R. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned senior counsel for the respondents.

3 The I.A. filed under Order VII Rule 14 (3) to receive the documents is primary application and the other I.As are consequential.

4 The sum and substance of the lis, involved in these Civil Revision Petitions, is that the petitioners filed the above suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. At the time of filing of the suit, the petitioners could not file certain documents viz., original passport of the third petitioner issued on 30.9.1981, premium notice issued by LIC for the month of December 1964 in which the name of the father of 2nd petitioner and their address is shown as suit property. The other two documents are certified copies of awards in Land Acquisition Cases. The petitioners contend that due to oversight the petitioners could not file certified copies of the files along with suit.

5 The respondents opposed all the said I.As by filing counter affidavits. Their main contention was that there was no whisper about the above documents earlier and the same was mentioned in the present I.As only. The petitioners did not state when those documents were traced. Hence prayed to dismiss the I.As.

6 Order VII Rule 14 (3) CPC says that a document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.

7 As was borne out from the record, the suit is of the year 2004, the evidence of plaintiff side was closed on 22.2.2018 and the evidence of defendants' side was closed on 16.3.2020. The four documents which the petitioners pray to receive are all old documents. First one is the LIC premium notice. The case of the petitioners is that the said notice was addressed to Waheeda Begum W/o Mohamad Ishaque who are the parents of the petitioners and that the amount mentioned in the said policy is one of the schedule properties. However, the respondents are denying the relationship between the said Waheeda Begum W/o Mohamad Ishaque and the petitioners. The respondents contend that the LIC premium notice is a rank fabricated document.

8 The other documents are original passport and copies of certified copies of Award in Land Acquisition Proceedings No.E/793/87 dated 18.5.2009 and Proceedings No.B/1147/2004 dated 06.02.2006.

9 It is significant to note that during the course of proceedings in the suit, an amendment was sought seeking to incorporate the compensation awarded by the GHMC, Hyderabad towards acquisition of land for laying road from the main road to Birla Planetarium. That issue was carried to Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLA Civil No.10748 of 2014. Pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble apex Court, dismissing the SLA, the petitioners incorporated two more schedules in the plaint which are the amounts of compensation awarded in the Land Acquisition Proceedings.

10 Now the petitioners contend that due to oversight, they could not file those documents along with the plaint and that those documents are very crucial for effective disposal of the suit.

11 Needless to say that the provision of law clearly envisages that if the plaintiff fail to file the documents which he wants to rely along with the plaint, such documents, without the leave of the Court, shall not be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff has to establish bona fide reason showing that he could not file those documents along with the suit as they were misplaced.

12 As seen from the record, it is a dispute between the petitioners who claim herself as first wife of the deceased Mohamad Ishaque and the other petitioners are her children through the said Mohamad Ishaque. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents are children of the second wife of said Mohamad Ishaque. The respondents are in possession of the property upon which the petitioners herein are claiming their right and interest. It is their case that they are not interested in dragging the litigation but in order to put quietus to the litigation and to get ultimate justice, they approached the court below by filing the above I.As for the purpose of recalling, receiving and marking of documents.

13 The documents on which the petitioners are relying are LIC premium notice, passport and award copies in land acquisition matters. Those documents are issued by public authority. When the issue revolves amongst the family members, though the same may cause some more delay in disposing of the main case, but, in order to prove their legitimate share, a reasonable opportunity be given to the petitioners. It may not cause much prejudice to the respondents except to say that the same may take more time for disposal of the main case.

14 In that background of deciding the matter finally and in order to put a quietus to the litigation once for all and also in order to avoid multifarious litigation, by deriving the rights of the parties and also the status of the parties, one more opportunity needs to be given to the petitioners in the light of the documents which are filed before the Court.

15 Accordingly, all the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed setting aside the common order dated 05.10.2020 passed in I.A.Nos.535 of 2020, 536 of 2020 and 537 of 2020 in O.S.no.450 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in all these Civil Revision Petitions shall stand closed.