Procedural rules must facilitate justice, and relevant documents should not be excluded based on technicalities that obstruct substantive justice.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order dated 09.08.2023 passed in I.A.No.239 of 2023 in O.S.No.365 of 2015 on the file of learned I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri.

2. Petitioner herein is defendant No.2, respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff and respondent No.2 herein is defendant No.1, in the suit.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court erred in dismissing the petition for receiving documents on the ground that the respondent No.1-plaintiff’s evidence and the other witnesses of the plaintiff are already over and therefore the plaintiff or his witnesses could not be confronted with the said documents. The learned trial Court failed to see that the Rules of Procedure are handmaide of justice and not a mistress of justice. The learned trial Court failed to examine the contents of the written statement, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the plaintiff has taken away several documents from the Bank locker. The learned Trial Court failed to examine the same and the petitioner- defendant No.2 has pleaded in the written statement that the respondent No.1-plaintiff has agreed to give up her rights over the suit schedule property vide settlement dated 19.09.2005 for a consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. Counsel to substantiate his contentions, has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Sugandhi (Dead) by Legal Representatives and another v. P. Rajkumar Represented by his Power agent Imam Oli, (2020) 10 SCC 706 and (ii) Levaku Pedda Reddamma and others v. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma and another , 2022 Supreme (SC) 1492.

4. Notice to respondent No.1 is served, but, none appeared.

5. The General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder of the petitioner-defendant No.2 herein by name C.Raghu has filed his evidence affidavit before the Trial Court as DW-1 and also filed application to receive the documents vide I.A.No.239 of 2023 under Order VIII Rule 1-A r/w. Section 151 of CPC seeking leave of the Court to receive the documents in support of his contentions.

6. Respondent No.1, who is respondent No.1, in the above said application has filed his counter contending that the documents are not relevant to the facts of the case.

7. The learned trial Court after going through the material on record has dismissed I.A.No.239 of 2023, on 09.08.2023, which is impugned in the Civil Revision Petition.

8. The case of the respondent No.1-plaintiff is that after the death of her father she was residing in the suit schedule property i.e., house bearing No.36-25 (old No.19-20/29) along with defendant Nos.1 and 2 (petitioner and respondent Nos.2 herein) and thereafter she got married to one Mr.M.M. Kumar. At that time she was working as House Surgeon, and all the marriage expenses were borne by her and later shifted to Bangalore and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are residing in the suit schedule property.

9. Petitioner herein, who is defendant No.2, in the suit has filed his written statement contending that himself and defendant No.1 therein are residing in the said House and paying taxes and other charges to the authorities concerned and the first defendant is a mentally challenged person and is a spinster, who has been taken care by the petitioner-defendant No.2. It is further stated in the written statement that the original document of the House property which were in the bank locker was taken away by the respondent No.1-plaintiff along with valuables when her father was sick and were to be returne