Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J.
Yallamilli Venu Mohan – Appellant
Versus
Kona Venkata Srinivasa Rao – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 1796 of 2019
Decided On : 31-10-2022
ORDER VIII RULE 1A C.P.C. - LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENTS - ORDER VIII RULE 1A(3) C.P.C. - COURT'S DISCRETION IN GRANTING LEAVE - RELEVANCE OF DOCUMENTS TO THE CASE - GENUINENESS OF DOCUMENTS - SUMMARY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES - ANALYSIS OF TRIAL COURT'S DECISION - APPLICABILITY OF ZULFIKAR HUSSAIN V. ZAINAB BEGUM (DIED) - DISMISSAL OF REVISION PETITION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for partition of property, alleging that the suit property belonged to his deceased father and that he was entitled to one share. Defendant No. 1, who was in an illegal relationship with the deceased father, claimed ownership of one item of the suit property based on a Will executed in her favor. Defendant No. 6, who was not originally a party to the suit, was impleaded by the plaintiff. Defendant No. 6 filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) C.P.C. seeking leave to file certain documents, including the Will, a sale deed, and other supporting documents.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court allowed the application and granted leave to Defendant No. 6 to file the documents, subject to proof and relevancy. The plaintiff challenged this order in a civil revision petition, arguing that the trial court failed to appreciate the scope of Order VIII Rule 1A C.P.C. and allowed the petition in a routine manner.
Issues: Whether the trial court committed any error in granting leave to Defendant No. 6 to file the documents under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) C.P.C., resulting in miscarriage of justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court did not commit any error in granting leave to Defendant No. 6 to file the documents. The court noted that the documents were relevant to the case and that Defendant No. 6 had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing them. The court also distinguished the case from Zulfikar Hussian v. Zainab Begum (Died), where the court had refused to allow the plaintiff to file documents after the closure of evidence, as the facts in that case were different.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and confirmed the order of the trial court.
ORDER :
1. The sole plaintiff before the trial Court filed this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness of order dated 12.06.2019 of learned Junior Civil Judge, Mummidivaram in I.A. No. 128 of 2019 in O.S. No. 114 of 2007. He is aggrieved because of the fact that under the impugned order, learned trial Court granted leave for defendant No. 6 in the suit in filing certain documents. Defendant No. 6 in the suit is respondent No. 1 in this revision. Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are rest of the defendants in the suit.
2. This revision petitioner filed O.S. No. 114 of 2007 stating that the suit schedule property belongs to Sri Gopala Krishna and he died. Defendant No. 2 is his wife and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are his daughters and plaintiff is his son. Therefore, the suit property shall be divided into four shares and grant him one share. Plaint further shows that defendant No. 1 is a woman in illegal intimacy with late Gopala Krishna. Gopala Krishna purchased one of the items of the suit schedule property in the name of that woman. Plaint further shows that defendant No. 5 in the suit claimed to have purchased another one item of the suit schedule under a registered sale deed dated 23.02.2007 executed by defendant No. 1. Plaint further shows that defendant No. 6 in the suit was not originally party and the plaintiff by filing I.A. No. 293 of 2016 got him impleaded. The amended plaint indicates that as per the written statement of defendant No. 1, one of the items of the suit schedule property was sold out by her under a registered sale deed dated 30.06.2007 and that she got that property because of a Will dated 30.12.2005 executed by late Gopala Krishna in her favour. Those are the essential averments in the amended plaint. It seems that issues in the suit were settled and the evidence in the suit was commenced and the evidence on plaintiff’s side was over and the matter was posted for evidence on defendants’ side. It is at that stage, defendant No. 6 came up with I.A. No. 128 of 2019 in O.S. No. 114 of 2007 under Order VIII Rule 1A and Section 151 C.P.C. requesting the Court to condone the delay in filing 9 documents listed therein and receive them. Those documents are as below 1 to 9:
“1. Certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 30.06.2007.
2. Certified copy of the ratification deed dated 19.11.2018.
3. Certificate issued by Tahsildar, Mummidivaram about the correct survey number dated 07.05.2018.
4. Original sale deed dated 04.07.2002 in the name of 1st defendant and her husband.
5. Original unregistered will dated 30.12.2005 executed by Yellamelli Gopala Krishna.
6. Bunch of Tax receipt for my landed property.
7. Adangal copy for my landed property issued by Tahsildar, Mummidivaram.
8. 1-B copy for my landed property issued by Tahsildar, Mummidivaram.
9. Pattadar Passbook issued by the Tahsildar, Mummidivaram.”
3. Defendant No. 6, being the petitioner in I.A. No. 128 of 2019, swore an affidavit in support of the petition and stated that all the necessary averments were there in his written statement about his purchase of the property from defendant No. 1 and about defendant No. 1 getting the property under a Will. It also mentions about the original sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in his favour and about mistake in the survey number and how a registered rectification deed was made by the executant. It further shows that when he purchased property from defendant No. 1, she handed over the original unregistered Will dated 30.12.2005, but that was misplaced in his house and he recently traced it out and therefore, there is delay so far as Will is concerned. For other registered documents, he stated that the originals were kept with society and he borrowed loan for the purpose of his agricultural operations and thus, the documents were used for mortgage. Therefore originals could not be filed. That he recently obtained certified copies of such originals. With such averments, he
AI
A court has the discretion to grant leave to a party to file documents under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) C.P.C., even if they were not filed along with the written statement, provided that the party provid....
The court established that procedural delays should not prevent the introduction of relevant evidence, prioritizing substantial justice.
Timely submission of documents and the requirement for sufficient cause to be shown for their delayed filing are crucial principles in civil procedure.
The duty of the defendant to produce relevant documents in court and the importance of fair trial procedures.
The court upheld the trial Court's dismissal of applications to introduce documents due to lack of valid grounds for delay, affirming the importance of timely evidence submission under procedural rul....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court may not permit the filing of additional documents at a belated stage if it would only protract the case, as established by the princ....
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
