2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 22322
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V. Sujatha, J
Gooty Sharfuddin – Appellant
Versus
Md Ibrahim – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1372/2024|CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1965/2024|CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1964/2024
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N Chandra Sekhar Reddy
For the Respondents: Vivekananda Virupaksha
An application to receive documents under Order VII Rule 14 CPC cannot be allowed if the particulars of those documents were not mentioned in the plaint, as it would permit the plaintiff to fill the lacunae and cause prejudice to the defendants.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 14 and Order XVIII Rule 17 - Application to receive additional documents - Application to recall and re-examine witness - Courts held that if the particulars of the documents sought to be received were not mentioned in the plaint, the Court cannot receive them as it would allow the plaintiff to fill lacunae and cause prejudice to the defendants. (Para 9) - The mere assertion that documents were misplaced, without any material particulars, cannot be accepted as sufficient cause for delay, especially when the plaintiff was under an obligation to exercise due diligence. (Para 11)
(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XVIII Rule 17 - Scope of power to recall witness - The main purpose of the rule is to enable the Court to clarify doubts regarding evidence led by parties, and the power is to be sparingly exercised and not as a general rule. (Para 8, citing Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate)
(C) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Supervisory jurisdiction - High Court held that it would not interfere with a reasoned order of the trial court dismissing applications to receive additional documents and recall witnesses, as the trial court had not committed any error requiring interference under Article 227. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and cancellation of a sale deed. During the arguments, the defendants contended that the plaintiff had not produced any record to prove the title of his predecessor. The plaintiff then filed applications to reopen evidence, recall the plaintiff, and receive certain documents (including a certified copy of a sale certificate from 1932). The trial court dismissed the applications on the ground that the plaintiff failed to mention the particulars of these documents in the plaint and had filed the applications at a belated stage without proper explanation. The plaintiff filed these civil revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Findings of Court:
The High Court upheld the trial court's orders, finding that the plaintiff had not mentioned the particulars of the documents in the plaint, and therefore, the documents could not be received in evidence as it would allow the plaintiff to fill the lacunae and cause prejudice to the defendants. The court also found the plaintiff's explanation that the documents were misplaced to be vague and unsupported by any material particulars, and thus not a sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the applications to receive additional documents and to recall the plaintiff for re-examination, given that the particulars of the documents were not mentioned in the plaint and the applications were filed at a belated stage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an application to receive documents under Order VII Rule 14 CPC cannot be allowed if the particulars of those documents were not mentioned in the plaint, as it would permit the plaintiff to fill the lacunae in his case and would cause prejudice to the defendants. A vague explanation of misplacement of documents is not a sufficient cause for the delay in filing such an application. The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be used to interfere with a well-reasoned order on such grounds.
Result: Civil revision petitions dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications if any, also closed (Para 13). Parties: Petitioners (Plaintiffs): (1) G. Ooty Sharfuddin (represented by his GPA, Gooty Jeelan Khan) and (2) M. Aqbool Basha (in CRP 1372/2024). Respondents (Defendants): (1) Md. Ibrahim (deceased, rep. by LRs R9 to R13), (2) Noor Ahmed, (3) S.K. Mahaboob Basha, (4) Iqbal Basha, (5) Maqbool Basha, (6) Shaik Habeeb Basha, (7) Chinna Moulali, (8) Rama Naidu, (9) Mahaboob Basha, (10) S. Perveen Banu, (11) S. Naseema Banu, (12) S. Fatima Banu, (13) S. Rehana Banu. (The parties in CRP 1965/2024 and CRP 1964/2024 are similar). Dissenting Opinions: None. The order is unanimous from a Single Judge Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court (Justice V. Sujatha). Catchwords/Legal Provisions: Code of Civil Procedure 1908; Order VII Rule 14; Order XVIII Rule 17; Application to receive additional documents; Recall of witness; Filling lacunae; Sufficient cause for delay; Supervisory jurisdiction; Article 227 of the Constitution of India; Lack of due diligence; Prejudice to opposing party. Judges Involved: The Hon'ble Smt. Justice V. Sujatha, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Bench: Single Judge (Justice V. Sujatha). Date of Judgment: 27 November 2025. Case Number: CRP 1372/2024, CRP 1964/2024, CRP 1965/2024. Citation: APHC010270672024. **Advocates:** - Petitioner(s): Sri. N. Chandrasekhar Reddy - Respondent(s): Sri. Vivekananda Virupaksha **Orders Under Challenge:** - CRP 1372/2024: Order dt. 10.05.2024 in I.A.No.97/2024 in O.S.No.121/2014 on the file of the Family Court-cum-IV Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Kurnool. - CRP 1965/2024: Docket Order dt. 10.05.2024 in I.A.No.95/2024 in O.S.No.121/2014 on the file of the Family Court-cum-IV Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Kurnool. - CRP 1964/2024: Docket Order dt. 10.05.2024 in I.A.No.96/2024 in O.S.No.121/2014 on the file of the Family Court-cum-IV Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Kurnool. **Statutory Provisions & Rules (with Paragraphs):** - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII Rule 14 (Paras 2, 7, 9, 10, 12) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XVIII Rule 17 (Paras 2, 7, 8, 12) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 151 (Paras 2) - Constitution of India, Article 227 (Paras 1, 12, 13) **Case Law Cited (with Paragraphs):** - *Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (deceased) by L.Rs) v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate*, (2009) 4 SCC 410 (Para 8) - *K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy*, (2011) 11 SCC 275 (Para 8) **Key Points: - Procedural law is handmaid of justice, but procedural violations causing prejudice to the adversary party cannot be condoned. - An application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC to receive documents not mentioned in the plaint cannot be allowed as it would fill the lacunae and cause prejudice. - A vague explanation of misplacement of documents is not a sufficient cause for delay. - Under Article 227, the High Court cannot interfere with a reasoned order of the trial court if it is not perverse.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
civil procedure
-
evidence
-
production of documents
(Para 7, 8, 9, 10)
-
recall of witnesses
(Para 8)
-
reopening of evidence
(Para 4, 11)
-
applications
-
interlocutory applications
(Para 2, 4)
-
constitutional law
-
jurisdiction
-
supervisory jurisdiction under article 227
(Para 1, 12)
Table of Contents
1. Plaintiff sought to produce additional documents at belated stage to prove title — Trial court dismissed applications — High Court upheld dismissal. (Para
2
,
4
)
2. Plaintiff contended documents were misplaced and essential for justice; defendants opposed as belated and lacking mention in plaint. (Para
4
,
6
,
7
)
3. Revision petitions challenging dismissal of applications to receive additional documents, reopen evidence, and recall witness dismissed. (Para
12
,
13
)
4. What is the requirement under Order VII Rule 14 CPC for production of documents by the plaintiff?
Plaintiff must list and produce documents in support of claim when plaint is presented; otherwise, leave is required, and court may refuse if documents are not mentioned in plaint as it would fill lacunae and cause prejudice. (Para
7
,
8
,
9
,
10
)
5. What is the scope of Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC for recalling a witness?
It is intended to enable court to clarify doubts, not to fill omissions in evidence; the power is to be exercised sparingly and in appropriate cases. (Para
8
)
6. What constitutes sufficient cause for belated filing of applications to produce documents?
Mere assertion that documents were misplaced, unsupported by material particulars, is insufficient and cannot be accepted as sufficient cause. (Para
9
,
11
)
COMMON ORDER:
All these civil revision petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/plaintiff who is represented by his GPA holder, aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Judge, Family Court – cum- IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool in three applications filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.121 of 2014. As such, I feel it appropriate to decide these revision petitions by way of a common order.
2. C.R.P.No.1372 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff challenging the order dated 10.05.2024 passed in I.A.No.97 of 2024 in O.S.No.121 of 2014 on the file of learned Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, whereby the Court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‗CPC‘), to receive certain documents as evidence. Along with the said application, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.95 of 2024 (under Section 151 of CPC) and I.A.No.96 of 2024 (under Order XVIII Rule 17 and Section 151 of CPC) in O.S.No.121 of 2014, to reopen the evidence and to recall the petitioner/plaintiff which were also dismissed vide two separate docket orders dated 10.05.2024. Challenging the docket orders passed by the Court below in I.A.No.95 of 2024 and I.A.No.96 of 2024, the petitioner/plaintiff filed C.R.P.No.1965 of 2024 and C.R.P.No.1964 of 2024, respectively.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the revision will hereinafter be referred as plaintiff and defendants, as arrayed before the Trial Court in the suit.
4. Brief facts of the case are as under:
(a) The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule BCDE house site in Sy.No.91 part, 92/2 and 109/3 of Kallur village having purchased from one N. Gururaja Rao on 23.02.2006 vide document No.2494/2006 and has been in possession of the same ever since. The plaintiff is an engineer at Dubai and thus, he is being represented by his General Power of Attorney, who is the brother of the plaintiff.
(b) Originally, the land to an extent of Acs.1.15 cents in Sy.No.91 of Kallur village belongs to one Nukala Subbarayudu who, in the year 1952, sold the same to Sampati Sanjeeva Reddy vide document No.182/1952, having enjoyed the same till 12.07.1966, Sampati Sanjeeva Reddy sold the same to one Smt. Hemalatha vide document No.1981/1966. The said Hemalatha, purchased another land in Sy.No.92/2 and 109/3 of Kallur village and collectively, she laid plots in the aforesaid lands and got it approved vide L.P.No.247/1981. Thereafter, the said Hemalatha sold plots of various extents in Sy.Nos.91, 92/2 and 109/3. Accordingly, the land admeasuring Acs.1.00 cents out of Acs.1.15 cents in Sy.No.91 was sold to one Smt. Lavanya on 22.01.1997 and having enjoyed the possession of the same, Smt. Lavanya, on 11.06.1999 sold the house site to an extent of Acs.0.35 cents in Sy.No.91 part, Sy.No.92/2 and Sy.No.109/3 to one N. Gururaja Rao vide document No.3437/1999. Subsequently, the said property belonging to N. Gururaja Rao, shown as BCDE, was purchased by the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 23.02.2006 under document No.2494/2006.
(c) While so, in the month of September, 2014, the agent of the plaintiff, on receipt of information that the defendants are trying to sell the subject BCDE house site as if it is their property, approached the defendants and submitted all the relevant documents to satisfy them. In spite of the same, as the defendants tried to trespass into the plaint schedule house site, the agent of the plaintiff questioned their right over the said property, upon which, the defendants stated that they purchased the land in Sy.No.91 of Kallur village from their vendor. Subsequently, when the agent of the plaintiff enquired in the regional Sub-Registrar‘s office, he came to know that the defendant Nos.1 to 5, having colluded with defendant Nos.6 and 7, fabricated the sale deed dated 01.08.2014 averrin
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
