THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5610 of 2017

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed questioning the legality and proprietary of the Order dt.21-09- 2017 in I.A.No.58 of 2017 in O.S.No.76 of 2006 passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, Khammam District.

The petitioners herein/defendants filed a Petition under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) r/w 151 CPC before the trial Court to receive the documents filed along with the petition condoning delay, alleging that respondent herein/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners herein and their men from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit schedule property, while claiming that he is the absolute owner and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same, but the petitioners herein/defendants set up a plea that the plaintiff has no right or title or interest in the schedule property and the sale deed executed by their vendor revealed that originally the property belongs to Maganti Mangaiah. An extent of 290 Sq.yards within the boundaries was purchased by the wife of petitioner No.1/D.1 from three daughters of Manganti Babu Rao and Venkata Lakshmi. To prove the ownership and possession and to disprove the contention of the respondent herein, they filed a sale deed of their vendor and the sale deeds executed by the petitioners in favour of others, certificates issued by gram panchayat, Peraigudem, House Tax receipts, Electricity Bills etc. The sale deeds executed by the petitioner No.1 in favour of others are also necessary to prove that they are the land owners.

The petitioners could not file the said documents earlier along with Written Statement and failure to file the documents is neither willful nor intentional as the sale deed was misplaced and recently it was traced and, therefore, requested the Court to receive the documents set out in the list condoning delay.

The Respondent/plaintiff filed Counter opposing the petition on the ground that the present petition is liable to be dismissed for the reason that the petitioners did not assign any reason for failure to file the documents along with the Written Statement and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Upon hearing argument of both the counsel, the trial Court dismissed the petition assigning its specific reasons. The petitioners herein, the defendants in the suit, preferred this Revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, mainly on the ground that the trial Court failed to consider the material evidence on record, which probablies the case of the petitioners and the Court below also failed to take into consideration the reason mentioned in the petition for failure to file the documents earlier and on erroneous consideration of facts and evidence of the case, dismissed the petition and prayed to set aside the same.

During hearing, Sri Pavan Kumar Khoturi, on behalf of Sri M.M.M.

Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that Order 8 Rule 1A (3) C.P.C., prohibits receiving the documents after framing of the issues and the bar is not absolute, but if the petitioners are able to show sufficient cause for their failure to file the documents along with the Written Statement, the Court can grant leave to file the documents and receive the same, condoning delay in filing such documents, by exercising power under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC, and placed reliance on the judgments reported in Bhanumathi v K.R.Sarvothaman and another, [ILR 2010(4) Kerala 751,] Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and others v P.V.Surya Narayana, [2017 (4) ALT 582], Voruganti Narayana Rao v Bodla Rammurthy and others, [2011 (6) ALD 142], Rajah R.V.G.K.Ranga Rao and another v Nizams Sugars Limited, [2004 (1) ALD 387], Bada Bodaiah and another v Bada Lingaswamy and others, [2003(1) ALD 790] and Aggarwal Vidya Pracharni Sabha v Municipal Corporation Faridabad and other