Back
IN THE IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
K.Sreenivasa Reddy
Pillela Kameswara Rao S/o Krishnaiah – Appellant
Versus
Atmakuru Vijaya Lakshmi W/o Janardhan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the civil suit and claims. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the admissibility of evidence. (Para 5) |
| 3. court's interpretation of procedural rules. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. rationale for allowing original document. (Para 10) |
| 5. final ruling on the petition. (Para 11) |
ORDER :
K Sreenivasa Reddy, J.
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order, dated 13.08.2024, in I.A.No.763 of 2024 in O.S.No.287 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to receive document viz. original discharge receipt dated 08.03.2020 executed by the respondent/plaintiff in favour of the petitioner/defendant, was dismissed.
2. Heard both sides and perused the record.
3. Respondent/plaintiff filed Original Suit No.287 of 2020 before the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore against the petitioner/defendant, for recovery of money, basing on promissory notes. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement admitting execution of the suit promissory notes
The court emphasized that documents crucial for defense cannot be rejected solely for late production if they are supported by existing pleadings, affirming judicial discretion under procedural rules....
Court emphasized the importance of timely evidence submission in civil proceedings, stating that late applications require valid reasons, and upheld the trial court's decisions as free from jurisdict....
Power of the court to receive additional documents which were not produced along with the written statement is protected under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) and if the court feels that leave is liable to be gra....
Procedural rules should not obstruct substantial justice; reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents must be interpreted liberally to ensure fair adjudication.
The trial court has discretion to deny the introduction of documents not existing at the time of the suit and lacking relevance to current proceedings.
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
