High Court's supervisory powers allow correction of procedural irregularities when substantive rights are at stake, emphasizing the need for additional documents to ensure a fair trial.

ORDER :

B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Order passed in IA.No.912 of 2022 in OS.No.1221 of 2014, dated 14.10.2022 by the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, where under the application filed by the respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff to grant leave to file additional documents, came to be allowed.

2. Petitioners are respondent Nos.2 to 6 and respondent No.1 is the petitioner and respondent No.2 is the respondent No.1 in IA.No.912 of 2022.

3.1. Respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff has filed IA.No.912 of 2022 under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking leave of the learned trial Court to file additional documents i.e., (1) Memorandum and Articles of Association (2) Extract of the Resolution.

3.2. It is stated in the affidavit that the deponent is the Managing Director, an Authorised Signatory of the plaintiff’s Company and he filed the suit for specific performance of Agreement of Sale, dated 09.12.2011 against the respondents therein (petitioner Nos.2 to 6 and respondent No.2 herein). The application further states that the deponent of the affidavit is intending to file the original Memorandum and Articles of Association as well as the Extract of Resolution along with the documents and they are crucial to establish the claim of the respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff, non filing of those documents are neither willful nor deliberate and sought leave of the learned trial Court.

4. Respondent No.3 therein (petitioner No.1 herein) filed counter and contended that the documents filed by the petitioner- plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) are copies with the seal and stamp of the company which do not amount to originals and the Certifying Authority of the originals is only the Registrar of Companies but not the Company itself. The Extract of Resolution is dated 24.08.2022. However, PW.1 has signed the plaint, petitions and other relevant documents without having any permission and the Extract of the Resolution is after filing of the suit. After cross-examination of PW.1, the petitioner has come up to file the documents only to cover up the lacunas in the case.

5. The learned trial Court allowed the application filed by the respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff holding that “the documents sought to be marked are only Memorandum and Articles of Association of plaintiff’s company and also Extract of the Resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing Sri Musani Sreenivasa Reddy who is the Managing Director, who can act and represent the plaintiff’s company and the documents are necessary to prove the case of the petitioner-plaintiff and no prejudice will be caused to the respondents-defendants if the documents are exhibited and they are entitled to cross-examine the witness”, which is impugned in the CRP.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners-respondent Nos.2 to 6- defendants Nos.2 to 6 submits that the learned trial Court has erroneously marked Ex.A7-Extract of Minutes of the Board of Directors of the Company held on 24.08.2022 wherein the Board Resolution dated 20.09.2014 is modified on the pretext that it was issued by mistake authorising only Mrs.W.Neeraja who is the Director of the Company and also wife of Mr.Sreenivasa Reddy Musani. The trial Court failed to observe that on the date of filing the suit dated 20.10.2014 Mr.Sreenivasa Reddy already has no authority to sign the plaint and verification as there was no Board Resolution executed in hi