The High Court · 2025

....RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT NO. 1

2. The Sub Regiskar, Jogipet Town and Mandal, Sangareddy district. 3. The District Registration Officer, Medak District at Sangareddy. 4. The Dy.lnspector General, Registration and Stamps Nizamabad Regeion, H.No.5-6-66, 1st Floor, Near Teja Hospital, Bharatiya Samruddi Finance Ltd., Dwaraka nagar, Nizamabad. (Respondents 2 to 4 arc profarma parties to this petition hence notice no req uired ) ...RESPONDENTS 2 to /URESPONDENTS 2 TO /T/DEFENDANTS 2 TO 4 lA NO: 2 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings in suit oS No. 28 of 2016 on the file of the senior civil Judge at Medak pending disposal of the Revision Petition. Counsel for the Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. A SURYANARAYANA Respondent No. l: SRl. N MANOHAR The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is liled under article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 19.03.2021 in I.A.No.32 0f 2020 in o.S.N o.28 0f 20L8, wherein the Respondent No.l/plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants Nos.1-4, seeking to declare the plaintiff as the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule propert5r, for recovery of arrears of rent and for possession thereof, and to declare the registered lease deed bearing No.376212O16, dated 24.06.2016 as null and void and for subsequent relief or injunction-

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner herein, who is defendant No.I in the suit, filed the written statement on 07.12.2016, and it is an admitted fact that no documents were filed at the time of filing of written submissions. The present application, [.A.No .32 of 2O2O, was liled on 18.o3 -2O2O seeking to receive certain documents by condoning the delay in filing the documents along with the written statement' It is further contended that the same could not be filed along with the written Statement as all the documents were in possession of the previous president of the society and said that they could not be filed .tA .\ \\ 2 subsequent to the trial and only upon a serious search the said documents were traced.

3. Before the triar court, it is averred that the said documents are material for the disposar of the suit and if they are not received by condoning.the delay, it would result in great loss and hardship, which cannot be compensated by any rneans and all t,.e documents are public documents. 4' In reply to the same, the respondent has fiIed a counter before triar court denying the aflegations men,oned in the petition and averred that there was no documentary evidence to prove that the president was erected on 22.10.2017 and,that his term was extended for further two years. The respondent arso denied the possession and sale of the land admeasuring Ac.o.14 guntas and also alleged that the documents i.e., minutes book, house tax assessment register, by laws, Iease deed document are all false and they are created behind the back of the respondent/praintiff and the defendants have no right or title over the said property in any manner and the same are void and not binding and a, are fabricated and created recenfly for the pu{pose of this case. 5' Having heard both sides and after considering the judgment filed by the plain tiff p6orted in U.Venkatramma v. V.Ravinder 3 Reddy in 2019(5) ALD 210 (TS). The learned trial Court has allowed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is frled by the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued and contended that the documents which are Iiled are all created and are filed more than five years after the date of filing of the written statement, and contended that as per Order I Rule 1'Al3t red tolth Sectlon 57 C.irc, no documents shall be filetd without the leave of the Court unless proper reasons has been shown for non- frling of the same and he also argued and contended that the order which is passed by the learned judge is erroneous on a ground that the said documents are all created and no proper reasons were explained and the delay was not properly explained and tJ e said application ought not to have been allowed for the reasons that the same was liled after the pleadings are completed and issues are framed and the trial has been commenced in the suit and liling of the said documents to cover up the lacunae is impermissible and the said documents having been filed at the belated stage, though contending as they are public documents the same can be received and he relied upon the judgments i.e.2019(5) ALD 2lO (TS), of Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad between U.Venkatramma v' V'Ravinder '2019(5) ALD 2ro (TS) 4 Reddy in CRP No.557 of 2Ol9 and prayed to allow ttre revision petition.

7. In contra, the learned counsel for the argued and contended that as the reasons which are cited by the petitioner for non-filing of the documents are genuine, and that as the said documents could not be traced and finally they were found with the former president of the said societ5r and only then they bame to know about the said document and which could not be frled for the said reasons and he argued that mere technicalities should not bar the consideration of public documents, which can be received subject to proof and relevance and he submits that the documents which the petitioner relied upon are public documents and also cross examine the said aspects. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sugandht (dted) o P.RS Kunar Rep. by power Agent, dated l3.lO.2O2O reported in (2O2O) f O SCC 7O6 and. in particular, paras 6,7,8, and 9 are as under::

6. Rule 1A of Order 8 of C.P.C. provides the procedure for production of documents by the defendant wtrich is as under: "1-A. Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him.- (1) Where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set-off or counter-claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the wriHen statement is presented by him a 5 and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the wriften statement. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant, he shall, rvherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not' without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document- (a) produced for the cross-examination of the plaintifi's witnesses, or (b)handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory'"

7. Sub-rule (1) mandates the defendant to produce the documents in his possession before the court and file the same along with his ' wiften statement. He must list out the documents which are in his possession or power as well as those which are not. ln case the defendant does not file any document or copy thereof along with his written statement, such a document shall not be allowed to be received in evidence on behalf of the defendant at the hearing of the suit. However, this will not apply to a document produced for cross- examination of the plaintiffs witnesses or handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. Sub-rule (3) states that a document which is not produced at the time of filing of the written statement, shall not be received in evidence except with the leave of the court. Rule (1) of Order 13 of C P C again makes it mandatory for the parties to produce their original documents before settlement of issues.

8. Sub-rule (3), as quoted above, provides a second opportunity to the defendant to produce the documents which ought to have been produced in the court along with the written statement, with the leave of the court. The discretion conferred upon the court to grant .n 6 such leave is to be exercised judiciously. While there is no straight jacket formula, this leave can be granted by the court on a good cause being shown by the defendant.

9. lt is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Prooedural and technicat hurdles shall not be allowed to conrc in the way of the court while doing substantial justice- lf the procedural violation does not seriously cause preiudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantialjustice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We shoutd not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a joumey 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 yhen an application is made for production of the documents under sub-rule (3).

8. No doubt as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner tllat the documents were filed approximately five years after the filing of the written submissions, however, the law contemplates that as the trial court being a court of facts where the parties witt have an opportunity to present all the available evidence either oral or documentary evidence and on the ground of technicalities no part5r can be shut from placing any evidence either oral or documentar5r purely on the technical grounds and considering the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court, as it is stated that the procedure \ 7 being handmade justice and as righfly contended in the Present case.

9. However, on perusal of the documents which are mentioned in tlle para 7 of the order and the order passed by the learned Judge reveals that the said documents are being received subject to proof and this Court is of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff that if the said document is received in evidence, he would be given an opportunit5r to cross examine the witnesses on the said documents and also to rebut the same.

10. In view of the above, I hold that no error has been committed by the learned Judge in my considered opinion. The learned Judge has righfly exercised the jurisdiction in allowing the application to considering the facts that the said documents were filed after more than five .r,ears of the written submissions the plaintiff has to be compensated of the same.

10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed. The learndd trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible subject to the condition that both { ( 8 thecounselsshallcooperatewiththetrialcourtwithout seeking arry unnecessary adjournments' the document shalt bereceivedsubjecttoproof'relevance'andapplicability' There shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous petitions' if any' pending in this revision petition shall stand closed' I \ ,TTRUE COPY" i"J;,?I^.JlH'tt?HXl6 SECTION OFFICER To, P

1. The Senior Civil Judge' Med{- 2. one cc to sri'n slfo"n"r"yana, Advocate [oPUc] 3. one CC to sri' fiilI'ion*' Advocate toPuc] 4. Two CD CoP-tes' a I I HIGH COURT DATED:18t09tZOZs ORDER CRP.No.1810 of Z0Z1 T .$ * s \ lf1 * H DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION 't