SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(AP) 671

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.
Mallampati Amar Kumar Alias Amar – Petitioner
Versus
Garapati Chamundesari Alias – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.628 of 2019
Decided On : 06-07-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ch B R P Sekhar
For the Respondent: G Mallikharjuna Rao

The duty of the defendant to produce relevant documents in court and the importance of fair trial procedures.

Headnote:

Order VIII Rule 1A(3) C.P.C. - Production of Documents - Fairness in Trial - [DEFENDANTS] - [Permanent Injunction Suit] - [Order VIII Rule 1A(3) C.P.C.] - The court discussed the duty of the defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon, emphasizing the importance of fair procedure and compliance with the rules. The court highlighted the need for defendants to enlist and produce documents in court along with the written statement, and the requirement to state the possession or power of documents not in their possession. The court also emphasized the purpose of trial to search and discover the truth, and the need for a fair trial in accordance with the law.

Fact of the Case:

The suit was for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of certain properties. The defendants filed a petition under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) C.P.C. to produce documents during the trial, which was dismissed by the trial court. The defendants challenged this dismissal through a Civil Revision Petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the defendants failed to provide a proper explanation for the non-production of documents at earlier stages of the suit, and the proposed documents were not crucial to the core dispute between the parties. The court emphasized the importance of fair procedure and compliance with the rules, and concluded that there was no good reason to interfere with the trial court's decision.

Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court's dismissal of the defendants' petition to produce documents under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) C.P.C. was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of the defendant to produce relevant documents in court and the importance of fair trial procedures. It highlighted the need for defendants to comply with the rules and provide proper explanations for the non-production of documents at earlier stages of the suit.

Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the defendants in the suit assailing the order dated 14.02.2019 of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna District in I.A.No.67 of 2019 in O.S.No.396 of 2006. By the impugned order, the application seeking leave of the Court for production of documents by the defendants was dismissed by the learned trial Court.

2. Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit.

3. Sri Ch.B.R.P.Sekhar, the learned counsel for revision petitioners and Ms. Pranathi, learned counsel representing Sri G.Mallikarjuna Rao, the learned counsel for respondent submitted their arguments.

4. On considering the material on record and the submissions on both sides, the point that falls for consideration is:

    “Whether the impugned order occasioned injustice requiring interference?”

POINT:

5. O.S.No.396 of 2006 is a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants and their men from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties and for costs and such other reliefs. Item No.1 is an extent of Ac.1.41 cents in R.S.No.128/1. Item No.2 is an extent of Ac.2.83 cents in R.S.No.128/2. Both these parcels of land situate in Bommuluru Village of Bapulapadu Mandal of Krishna District. The suit is laid on the premise that both the items of properties originally belonged to Smt. Garapati Atchayamma as she acquired them under a registered sale deed dated 10.05.1949. She owned and enjoyed those properties. By a Will dated 20.01.1991 she bequeathed them to her granddaughter, who is the plaintiff in the suit. That testator died on 16.03.1991. The Will came into effect and since then the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of these properties. Revenue authorities verified and granted pattadar and title deed passbooks to plaintiff. Mandal Surveyor visited the properties and prepared a plan dated 24.11.2006 and recognized the possession of the plaintiff.

6. In the plaint it is further stated that defendants own and possess the land in R.S.No.127. A part of that land is western boundary for item No.2 of the plaint schedule properties. The defendants have no rights or claims over the plaint schedule properties. For the plaint schedule properties on western side and northern side there is fencing. Since the defendants have been making forcible attempts to create a passage across item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties and since they did not relent despite advises, it is to prevent them from interfering into these properties the suit is laid.

7. Resisting the suit, 1st defendant filed a written statement stating that the title and possession claimed in the plaint is denied as false. It is specifically pleaded in this written statement that item No.2 of the plaint schedule is fictitious and is not in existence. At para No.14 of the written statement all the documents that are referred in the plaint are questioned stating that they are all created and they are fictitious documents. 1st defendant admits of owning and possessing of Ac.3.22 cents of land in R.S.No.127. It is stated that Ac.0.89 cents of land in R.S.No.128/2 is vagu land. The predecessors of defendants and thereafter the defendants have been entering into their own land in R.S.No.127 through that vagu land. There is no other access for their land. It is also pleaded that husband of Garapati Atchayamma is Sri Garapati Siva Rama Krishnaiah. When he and one Mr. G.Sambasiva Rao made attempts to occupy the vagu land, defendant No.1 herein along with his father objected their illegal acts but they did not stop their illegal acts of occupying the vagu land. In those circumstances, one of the neighbouring landlords Smt. Swarnalatha filed O.S.No.122 of 2001 before learned Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid and obtained a temporary injunction preventing the illegal occupation of vagu land. The defendants therein employed several threats to make the plai

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top