Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 Supreme(AP) 36

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J.
M/s. Lakshmi Priya Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Others – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Ramalingam Mills Ltd. & Another - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition Nos. 3624, 3625, 4068, 4069, 4070 & 4071 of 2014, 3399 & 3401 of 2015
Decided on : 15-02-2016

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:S. Subba Reddy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:K.G. Krishna Murthy, Senior Counsel, K.Ramamohan Mahadeva, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Plaintiff shall file all documents which are in his possession along with plaint.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 14 and Order XVIII Rule 17 – Production of evidence – Plaintiff shall file all documents which are in his possession along with plaint and by showing sufficient cause he can file it at a later point of time under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC – Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC operates in altogether a different field and what Court has to see is whether party who is applying thereunder was prevented from filing those documents at earliest point of time or not.
       (B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 14 and Order XVIII Rule 17 – Production of evidence – Documents are that of plaintiff in whose custody they were available – Only reason assigned in affidavit filed in support of applications is that those documents were traced out recently – There is no justification for such statement – When evidence of parties was completed and suit is coming up for arguments, it is not intendment of sub-rule to grant leave to a party to file documents before commencement of arguments – Impugned order set aside.
       Result – Civil Revision Petitions allowed.

Order:

1. These Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common order as they arise out of two suits, where the defendants were common. O.S.No.23 of 2007 was filed by M/s.Ramalingam Mills Ltd., seeking recovery of money against the defendants and O.S.No.31 of 2007 was filed by one Velu Yarn Traders seeking recovery of money against the same defendants in O.S.No.23 of 2007. When the suits were coming up for arguments, the plaintiffs filed two sets of four interlocutory applications in both the suits for reopening the suits, for receiving certain documents, and for recalling P.W.1 and D.W.1. All the applications were allowed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, by two common orders dated 22.09.2014, challenging which, the defendants filed the above Civil Revision Petitions, and the details are as under:

Sl.No.	C.R.P.No.	Filed against I.A.No.	I.A filed under the provisions of CPC	O.S.No.
1	3624 of 2014	999 of 2014	Section 151	23 of 2007
2	4068 of 2014	1000 of 2014	Order VII Rule 14(3) & Section 151	23 of 2007
3	3399 of 2015	1001 of 2014	Order XVIII Rule 17 & Section 151	23 of 2007
4	4069 of 2014	1002 of 2014	Order XVIII Rule 17 & Section 151	23 of 2007
5	3625 of 2014	1009 of 2014	Section 151	31 of 2007
6	4070 of 2014	1010 of 2014	Order XVIII Rule 17 & Section 151	31 of 2007
7	3401 of 2015	1011 of 2014	Order XVIII Rule 17 & Section 151	31 of 2007
8	4071 of 2014	1012 of 2014	Order VII Rule 14(3) & Section 151	31 of 2007

The affidavit filed in support of the application in I.A.No.1012 of 2014 by the plaintiff in O.S.No.31 of 2007 to receive the documents i.e., Xerox copies of the T.D.S. Certificate and Scrutiny Balance Sheet reads as follows:

“I submit that I have filed my chief affidavit and the above suit is posted for arguments to 3-9-2014. I further submit that T.D.S.certificate which shows the payment of interest by the defendant along with scrutiny balance sheet are relevant, material and necessary to prove my case. The said documents are traced out recently. There is no willful default in filing the same and no prejudice will be caused to the defendants as the documents pertaining to defendants. I am filing separate petition to recall myself as P.W.1 to mark the said document and also to reopen the above suit.”

A counter affidavit was filed in I.A.No.1012 of 2014 stating that the allegations that the plaintiff was examined as P.W.2 and after completion of the evidence of the defendants the suit was posted for arguments to 03.09.2014 were not true. It was further stated that the plaintiff took time for the purpose of adducing further evidence and when the suit was posted on 21.04.2014, it was reported that there was no further evidence. Thereafter, the suit underwent adjournments on 28.04.2014, 03.06.2014, 12.06.2014, 30.06.2014 and 07.07.2014. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.746 of 2014 for reception of documents and they were allowed on 14.07.2014. Thereafter also the suit underwent eight adjournments and it was posted to 20.08.2014 for arguments. It was further stated that, after completion of evidence of the defendants, no opportunity should be given to the plaintiff to cover up the lacunae. The documents were not related to the above case and the TDS certificate relates to M.R.Handlooms Muthaiah Palaykat Company and Ganesh Textiles, which do not relate to the suit transaction. The documents were neither true copies nor certified copies. They were not authenticated. The scrutiny balance sheet was connected with M/s.Velu Yarn Trading Company and the plaintiff in the suit was Velu Yarn Traders, a registered firm, but not a Company.

The trial Court, having noticed that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(AP) 36

IMPORTANT POINT Plaintiff shall file all documents which are in his possession along with plaint.

Cases Referred (6)

IMPORTANT POINT
Plaintiff shall file all documents which are in his possession along with plaint.