THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3299 of 2023

ORDER:

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 23.08.2023 passed in I.A.No.75 of 2023 in O.S.No.108 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhongir, whereunder the petition filed by the petitioners/defendants herein for receiving of documents was dismissed.

3. The petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff before the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed before the trial court.

4. The plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.108 of 2018 before the Trial Court for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. In the said suit the defendants have filed I.A.No.75 of 2023 under Order VIII Rule IA of C.P.C read with Section 151 of C.P.C, to receive the document dated 16.12.1979, which was said to have misplaced at the time of filing written statement and since it was traced requested the trial court, but the trial court refused to receive the same on the ground that the said document was filed at the belated stage in order to drag on the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/defendants preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that in the written statement it was mentioned that at the time of marriage of respondent/plaintiff certain amounts, gold and other house hold articles were given to her towards pasupu kunkuma and to that extent a document was also executed on 16.12.1979 and the same was attested by one Rathna Reddy. Since the said document could not be traced at the time of filing written statement, it could not be filed and as it is traced they filed in the Court and requested the Court to set aside the impugned order and allow the Civil Revision Petition.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners/

defendants in support of his contention placed the reliance on the Judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Sugandhi (dead) Vs. P.Raj Kumar, [2020 (10) SCC 706]

Relevant portion of the said Judgment in Para No.9 is as follows:

“9. The procedure is the handmaid of justice procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the Court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, Courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the Court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the Court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the documents under sub-rule (3)”.

7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the alleged document dated 16.12.1979 is irrelevant and inadmissible under law. The Trial Court rightly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners/defendants and there are no grounds in the revision and requested to dismiss the petition.

8. After hearing both sides and perusing the records, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners herein are defendants in O.S.No.108 of 2018 and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The respondent herein filed suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property under Order 7 Rule 1 read with Section 26 of CPC. The petitioners herein filed I.A.No.75 of 2023 in O.S.No.108 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhongiri for receiving of the document dated 16.12.1979.

9. The contention of the petitioners is that the document filed with petition was misplaced at the time of written statement and it was trace