Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 630
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
Gogineni Srinivasa Rao and Ors. -Appellant
Vs.
Gogineni Jogaiah and Ors. - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 3088 of 2014
Decided On: 17.12.2020
For the Appellant :C.H. Ramesh Babu, Advocate
Delay in filing documents is not a ground to reopen evidence, provided that the documents are relevant and material to the case and that receiving them would not cause prejudice to any of the parties.
Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER XVIII RULE 17 - REOPENING OF EVIDENCE - DELAY IN FILING DOCUMENTS - LEGITIMACY OF CHILDREN - REBUTTAL EVIDENCE - DELAY IN FILING DOCUMENTS NOT A GROUND TO REOPEN EVIDENCE - ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION TO REOPEN EVIDENCE SET ASIDE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for partition of property and allotment of shares. The first defendant raised a specific plea that the plaintiffs were not legitimate children and hence not entitled to claim relief of partition. The plaintiffs filed an application to reopen evidence and recall a witness to mark certain documents to substantiate their claim of legitimacy. The Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground of delay.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application to reopen evidence solely on the ground of delay. The Court noted that the plaintiffs had secured certified copies of certain documents to substantiate their contentions and that receiving those documents would not cause prejudice to any of the parties. The Court also noted that the respondents did not raise any specific objections in their counter affidavit, except for Respondent No. 4 raising a contention that the application was belated.
Issues: Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application to reopen evidence solely on the ground of delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and others, which held that a petition to reopen evidence can be filed at any stage of the proceedings, before reserving the judgment, subject to justification. The Court held that there is no straight jacket formula to deny such relief on the mere ground of delay. The Court also noted that the plaintiffs had secured certified copies of certain documents to substantiate their contentions and that receiving those documents would not cause prejudice to any of the parties.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the civil revision petition, setting aside the order of the Trial Court dismissing the application to reopen evidence.
ORDER :
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
1. This civil revision petition is filed assailing the order in I.A. No. 364 of 2014 in O.S. No. 220 of 2013 dated 21.08.2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, Krishna District.
2. The petitioners filed civil revision petition to reopen the evidence of the plaintiffs and to recall P.W.-1 under Order XVIII Rule 17 of C.P.C. for marking documents. The petitioners are the plaintiffs, whereas, respondents were the defendants in O.S. No. 220 of 2013.
3. The suit was filed for partition of suit schedule property into three equal shares and for allotment of two such shares to the plaintiffs by metes and bounds and for separate possession. The petitioners filed I.A. No. 364 of 2014 on the ground that the defendants took a plea in their written statement that the mother of the petitioners is not the legally wedded wife of the first defendant and the petitioners are illegitimate children of the first defendant and they obtained certified copy of sale deed dated 16.03.1981 executed by P.W.-5 in favour of third defendant in respect of the land covered under Ex. A-8 and voters list in respect of Gottumukkala village. As the evidence of these petitioners and respondents was completed, the suit was posted for arguments, the petitioners secured certified copies of those documents and filed separate petition for recall of P.W.-1 and to receive the documents.
4. While, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 reported no counter in I.A. No. 364 of 2014; Respondent No. 4 filed counter affidavit denying material allegations, inter alia contending that the petition was belated and it was filed to drag on the suit proceedings and requested to dismiss I.A. No. 364 of 2014.
5. The Trial Court dismissed I.A. No. 364 of 2014 on 21.08.2014 on the ground of delay in filing the documents. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, mainly contending that the documents filed along with I.A. No. 364 of 2014 are important documents to substantiate the claim of the petitioners, more particularly, to prove that they are legitimate children of the first defendant and that, in the absence of those documents, it is difficult to prove the relationship between the petitioners and first defendant and only to disprove the contention of the first defendant, the petitions is filed to reopen the evidence of the plaintiffs and to recall P.W.-1 for marking documents. It is contended that the Trial Court dismissed I.A. No. 364 of 2014 only on the ground of delay only without considering the surrounding circumstances and committed an error in dismissing I.A. No. 364 of 2014.
6. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, as there is delay is filing documents and reopen petition can be filed at any stage before hearing the arguments of the petitioners counsel appearing in the matter. Hence, there is no embargo to reopen the evidence of these petitioners/plaintiffs and requested to issue a direction to the Trial Court to reopen the evidence of the petitioners/plaintiffs and pass consequential orders.
7. Indisputably, the evidence of both the petitioners and respondents herein i.e. plaintiffs and defendants was closed by the date of filing of I.A. No. 364 of 2014. In fact, a written statement was also filed on 05.11.2013 questioning the legitimacy of the petitioners. The suit was posted for trial on 04.04.2014. On 04.04.2014 witnesses were not produced and posted to 15.04.2014, and again reposted to 04.06.2014. On 04.06.2014 petitioners filed I.A. No. 198 of 2014 to receive the documents and it was allowed. The petitioners also filed memo along with documents on 19.06.2014 with G.L. Nos. 2243 and 2245 and they were allowed and plaintiffs' evidence was closed. After closure of plaintiffs evidence, defendants adduced their evidence and the suit was posted for arguments to 30.07.2014. Thus, though there was reasonable time enabling these petitioners to file a
