Point of law: there is no possibility for considering the said document as evidence, as, once again, an application is required to be made by the plaintiff seeking the said document to be marked and thus, reopening the enquiry proceedings setting at naught the entire exercise which has been carried out earlier

JUDGMENT :

Challa Kodanda Ram, J.

1. Petitioner and respondent Nos. 1 to 69 filed O.S. No. 157 of 1983 for partition and separate possession of vast extent of land. They also filed I.A. No. 742 of 2017 to receive the certified copy of the proceedings dated 23.02.2012 issued by the Joint Collector (S), Ranga Reddy District, and to mark the same by condoning the delay. The trial Court by observing that the delay is not at all explained to receive the document, dismissed the said I.A. vide order dated 12.02.2018. Hence, this Revision.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on earlier occasion, when the afore-said suit was dismissed by the trial Court, the petitioner and other plaintiffs filed A.S. No. 133 of 1994 and this Court vide judgment dated 27.07.2007 allowed the same remanding the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal after affording an opportunity to both the parties to amend the pleadings or adduce additional evidence, if they choose. In the light of the same, the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1 to 69 filed the present I.A. to bring on record the proceedings dated 23.02.2012. He further submits that the trial Court dismissed the I.A. without considering the merits of the matter and the explanation given for the delay in bringing the said proceedings on record. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manohar Lal, 2017 (2) LAWS (SC) 77, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the amendment of the pleadings can be made at any stage and likewise, in terms of Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC., additional evidence can also be brought on record at any stage, even at the stage of trial, first appeal, and second appeal with the leave of the Court. He also placed reliance on the judgment dated 14.03.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3048 of 2019.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 97 to 101 submits that there are no bona fides on the part of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1 to 69 and filed the I.A. only to drag on the proceedings and further, no explanation is forthcoming for the delay in bringing the said proceedings on record, though the petitioner himself is a party to the same. He also submits that the suit is at the stage of arguments and allowing the I.A. at this point of time, would only further get the matter delayed and there being no merits in the present case, prays for dismissal of the Revision.

4. At the outset, it may be noted that in M/s. Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. (supra), in the context of considering the amendments to the pleadings, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the judgment in Revajeetu Builders and Developments Vs. Narayana Swamy and Sons and others, (2009) 10 SCC 84, wherein it culled out the following principle in para 63 thereof, which reads as under:

"63. On critically analyzing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment:

(1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case;

(2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide;

(3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money;

(4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation;

(5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and

(6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application.

There are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive."

5. In M/s. Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. (1 supra), the observations made therein are in line with the sta