Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : D.S.R.VERMA
Yale Malleshappa - Appellant
Versus
Chinna Hotur Bale Eramma - Respondent
Decided On : 09-08-04
Held : No doubt, the provisions of order 16, Rule 1 or Order 14, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure may not really be applicable as contended by the learned senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the defendants. The stages prescribed in those two provisions did not, in deed, reach yet. Quite obviously those two provisions are available to the Court below and also the parties only at the relevant point of time as postulated therein.
But, in the present case, the facts are altogether different. It is only while dealing with an application filed under order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of civil Procedure, the Court was rather in dilemma regarding the veracity of two sets of documents filed by each side. In such a case, in fact, no express provision is available under the Code to the Trial court.
Section 141 of the Code of Civil procedure makes it clear that the procedure that is to be adopted in a regular suit, as far as possible, be followed while dealing with interlocutory matters also subject to certain exceptions.
In a way, the present situation, where the Trial Court is landed, it has not been met with by the Code of Civil procedure by enacting any specific provision in that behalf. In the absence of any such specific provision, while dealing with a particular situation, which is rather a fact situation, the powers of the Court that are exercisable under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be held to be taken away. Therefore, the inquiry that is being conducted by the Court below while dealing with an application filed under order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of civil Procedure shall have to be understood as an inquiry akin to that of an inquiry in the regular suit also. The power of the court cannot be understood to have been stifled or divested simply because there is no specific provision enacted by the legislature covering the present piquant situation faced by Trial Court.
It is settled proposition of law that, at times, technicalities have no place in the adjudicatory process. As already pointed out, there is no provision covering the present controversial and factual situation. In such an event, it is for the court below to invoke its inherent jurisdiction conferred under Section-151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in order to meet the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of law.
In the instant case, since there are obviously two sets of documents, said to have been issued by the very same Village administrative Officer, in my considered view, it is always open to the Court below to decide, at the threshold itself. As to which set of documents are prima facie true.
In other words, as contended by the learned Senior Counsel, even though the provisions of Order 16, Rule 1 or Order 14 rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable or the stages mentioned therein have not reached as yet, still, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case particularly when the court below was in an indecisive state very same documents i. e. , Adangals, issued by the very same Village Administrative officer in respect of the property, which are quite contrary to each other, the Court below can always exercise the discretionary jurisdiction invoking Section 151 of the code of Civil Procedure, in the interest of justice.
( 1 ) HEAD both sides.
( 2 ) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the order and decree, dated 12-7-2004, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Adoni, Kurnool District, allowing the application in LA. No. 673 of 2004 in O. S. No. 282 of 2004, filed under Rule 129 of the Civil Rules of Practice and Order 16, rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the code of Civil Procedure to summon the mandal Revenue Officer by directing him to produce the original Adangal for the faslis 1404 to 1413 pertaining to the suit schedule land bearing S. No. 447 of Madire village.
( 3 ) THE petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff.
( 4 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit.
( 5 ) THE short question that falls for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is - as to whether a party to the suit can make an application under Order 16, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure seeking to summon a person directing him to produce some records pertaining to the suit schedule property, without there being any issues framed by the Court?
( 6 ) THE undisputed facts are that the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The plaintiff also filed an application in LA. No. 602 of 2004 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure along with the suit. The defendants have also filed written statement. At that stage i. e. , during the enquiry into the said application, filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff seems to have filed the present application under Order 16, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that the Adangals, which were filed by the defendants along with the written statement, were obtained fraudulently. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff also filed certain set of Adangals in support of her case.
( 7 ) THE Court below, after considering the factual and legal position, allowed the said application. Aggrieved by the said impugned order and decree, the present civil Revision Petition has been filed.
( 8 ) SRI K. Gangaiah Naidu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants, vehemently contends that Order 16, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not available to the plaintiff at the interlocutory stage, particularly while dealing with an application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is his further contention that while dealing with an interlocutory application, the jurisdiction of the Court is limited to the extent of going through the facts and circumstances and arrive at a conclusion as to whether the application filed under order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of civil Procedure can be ordered. It is also his further contention that a reading of order 16, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil procedure Code would only suggest that the Court can exercise its jurisdiction under the said provision only after framing the issues.
( 9 ) FOR ready reference and convenience, the provisions of Rule 1 of Order 16 is extracted hereunder:"1. List of witnesses and summons to witnesses: (1) On or before such date as the Court may appoint, and not later than fifteen days after the date on which the issues are settled, the parties shall present in Court a list of witnesses whom they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents and obtain summonses to such persons for their attendance in Court. (2) A party desirous of obtaining any summons for the attendance of any person shall file in Court an application stating therein the purpose for which the witness is proposed to be summoned. (3) The Court may, for reasons to be recorded, permit a party to call, whether by summoning through Court or otherwise, any witness, other than those whose names appear in the list referred to in sub-rule (1), if such party shows sufficient caus
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
