Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 9173

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

2023:APHC:18759

+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1034 and 1116 of 2023

CRP No.1034 of 2023

Between:
# Digumarthi Suresh Babu, S/o Yanadi Rao
… Petitioner
And
$ B.A.S. Granites, Kurnool,
Rep. by its Managing Partner,
Boggavarapu Venkata Subba Rao,
S/o. Subbarayudu, aged about 67 years
R/o Nehru Nagar, Kurnool and 17 others.
…. Respondents

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri U. Prabhunath
^Counsel for Respondents: Sri P. Kamalakar

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 14.06.2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: U. Prabhunath
For the Respondents: P. Kamalakar

The court held that under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) CPC, leave to produce additional documents after the closure of evidence cannot be granted on a mere asking; the applicant must provide sufficient cause for non-production and justify the relevance of the documents to prevent abuse of process.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VIII Rule 1A(3) and Order XVIII Rule 17 - Application for reception of additional documents and recall of witness - Suit pending since 2006 - Application filed after 7 years from closure of evidence without assigning sufficient cause or proof of due diligence - Leave under O.8 R.1A(3) cannot be granted on mere asking - Court not a post-office - Requirement to demonstrate relevance and explain delay is mandatory - Inordinate delay and failure to justify document non-production warrant dismissal of revision petitions. (Paras 4, 8, 14, 17)

(B) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Scope of judicial review - Interference warranted only if order suffers from jurisdictional error or patent perversity - Trial court order refusing to accept documents filed at the argument stage after 7-year delay is not perverse. (Para 18)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner (Defendant No.6) moved applications to receive additional documents and recall a witness (DW.2) in a partition suit (O.S. No. 224 of 2006) during the final argument stage, seven years after lead evidence was closed. The trial court dismissed these applications, leading the petitioner to file civil revision petitions challenging the dismissals.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the petitioner failed to offer any valid explanation for the 7-year delay in producing the documents or to demonstrate their relevance. The court emphasized that the power to recall witnesses under O.18 R.17 is not for filling lacunae. As no jurisdictional error in the trial court's order was shown, the revisions were dismissed.

Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in refusing to receive additional documents and recall a witness at the argument stage after an inordinate delay of 7 years without sufficient cause.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) CPC, the court's discretion to grant leave for late production of documents is not absolute; it must be exercised only upon proof of sufficient cause for non-production at the initial stage, particularly to prevent the abuse of process in long-standing litigation.

Result: Revision petitions dismissed.

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgments? - Yes -

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked

to Law Reporters/Journals - Yes -

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see

the fair copy of the Judgment? - Yes –

<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. Civil Revision Petition No.59 of 2021 dt 20.07.2022

2. 2016 (3) ALD 49

3. 2011 Law Suit (SC) 271

4. 186 Ct.Cl.752, 407 F.2d 866, 873

5. (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 410

6. 2020 (2) ALT 364 (S.B.)

7. 2019 (6) ALT 360 (S.B)

8. 2011(6) ALT 299 (SB)

9. 2009 (3) ALT 236 (S.B)

10. 2017 (4) ALT 582 (S.B)

11. 2011 (6) ALT 299 (S.B)

12. (2016) 14 SCC 142

13. 1964 SCR (5) 946

COMMON ORDER :

As the issue involved in both the civil revision petitions is one and the same, these matters are taken up together for disposal by this Common Order.

2. The petitioner herein is the defendant No.6 and the respondents 1 to 3 are the plaintiffs and the respondents No.4 to 18 are the defendants No.1 to 5 and 7 to 16 in O.S.No.224 of 2006, which was filed before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole (for short “the trial Court”) for grant of partition of the schedule property as per compromise decree in O.S No.183 of 1932 and also for declaration. The petitioner herein filed I.A.Nos.82 of 2023 in O.S.No.224 of 2006 under Order VIII Rule 1(A) 3 of CPC seeking to receive documents for the purpose of marking the same on behalf of the petitioner/DW.2 and also filed I.A.No.83 of 2023 in O.S.No.224 of 2006 before the trial Court under Order18 Rule 17 of CPC seeking to recall the petitioner/DW.2 for the purpose of marking documents. The same were dismissed by the trial Court vide separate orders dated 14.03.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petitions came to be filed.

3. Heard Mr. U. Prabhunath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P. Kamalakar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the proposed documents are to be received for the purpose of marking the same in the evidence of DW.2 for proper adjudication of the suit. He further submits that the proposed documents are relevant and useful in determining the issue and hence the documents are to be received for the purpose of marking the same through the petitioner/DW.2. In support of his contention, relied upon a catena of decisions reported in (i) Joint Commissioner-cum-Chief Fire Officer Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh and others v. Ajay Singh, (1 Civil REvsiion Peititon No.59 of 2021 dt. 20.07.2022) , wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that “No good cause for not placing the CD along with written statement, at the first instance, ever came to be placed on record, rather pleadings as set up in the written statement and application filed Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC are contradictory.

(ii) Nerudu Srinivas Reddy and another v. Neerudu Sunanda alias Sunanda Reddy alias Sripathy Sunanda Reddy, (2 2016 (3) ALD 49), wherein it was held that invoking of inherent power under Section 151 CPC in the facts of the present case is for brining of further evidence in the form of an Advocate Commissioners report by the petitioners. In that view of the matter, the procedure for adducing and recording of evidence as provided for under Order XVIII may be noticed.

(iii) In K.K. Veluswamy v. N. Palaniswamy, (3 2011 Law Suit (SC) 271), wherein it was held that the ode earlier had a specific provision in Order 18 Rule 17A for production of evidence not previously known or the evidence which could not be produced despite due diligence.

5. Learned counsel while relying upon the decisions stated above, contended that, it is necessary to determine the present application. As the I.A.No.81 of 2023 was allowed by reopening the suit for the purpose of receiving the documents and marking the same through DW.2, the application is before the Court for determination. Admittedly the suit is filed by R.1 to R.3/ plaintiffs for partition in respect of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 9173

The court held that under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) CPC, leave to produce additional documents after the closure of evidence cannot be granted on a mere asking; the applicant must provide sufficient cause for non-production and justify the relevance of the documents to prevent abuse of process.

Cases Referred (2)