Civil Revision Petition No. 4203 of 2012 · High Court

Civil Revision Petition No.4203 of 2012 is directed against the order, dated 12.07.2012, in I.A.No.657 of 2012 in O.S.No.1354 of 2010 on the file of the learned II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order VII Rule 14 (3) CPC to receive certain documents, was dismissed.

Civil Revision Petition No.4198 of 2012 is directed against the order, dated 12.07.2012, in I.A.No.658 of 2012 in O.S.No.1354 of 2010 on the file of the learned II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein for recall of P.W.1 for marking of documents, was dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent. Perused the records.

Petitioner herein-chit fund company filed the suit for recovery of amounts allegedly due

defendants. Respondents herein-defendants written statement contesting the suit. Plaintiff’s side evidence was completed and the matter was coming up for defendant’s side evidence. Plaintiff filed the present applications seeking the leave of the Court to file certain documents and also to recall P.W.1 further examination to mark the said documents. The trial Court dismissed I.A.No.657 of 2012 on the ground that the documents are produced at a belated stage. Consequently, I.A.No.658 of 2012 was also dismissed. Plaintiff seeks to file documents relating to incorporation of the plaintiff company and also the certificates of registration, which are mentioned in the list appended to the petition. No doubt, under Order VII Rule 14 CPC the plaintiff is required to file all the documents he seeks to rely upon along with the plaint. However, Rule 14 (1) enables the Court to grant leave for production of documents at a subsequent stage.

The procedure is intended to ensure fair trial wherein both parties are afforded sufficient opportunity to place the entire evidence on record so that the trial Court will have the benefit of appreciating the entire evidence and render just decision in the matter. Ofcourse, in the name of fair trial the parties cannot be permitted to take the procedure for a ride. The grant or refusal of leave under sub-Rule 3 of Rule 14 CPC is in the realm of discretionary powers of the Court and the trial Court is required to exercise the discretion in a judicious manner. In the present case, the application seeking leave to file documents is filed immediately after the plaintiff’s evidence, and the documents sought to be filed relate to the incorporation of the plaintiff company and by receiving the said documents no prejudice will be caused to the defendants. The trial Court ought to have permitted the plaintiff to file the said document duly giving opportunity to the defendants to cross examine the witnesses relating to the said document so that the entire evidence is placed on record and the trial Court can render a proper decision on all aspects pertaining to the suit.

In the circumstances, the impugned orders are held untenable and they are accordingly set aside. Consequently, I.A.Nos.657 and 658 of 2012 stand allowed and the petitioner-plaintiff is permitted to file the documents and also recall P.W.1 with liberty to the defendants to further cross-examine the witnesses. Petitioner is also at liberty file application reopening of the evidence in the event the plaintiff’s side evidence is already closed.

In the result, Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, filed in these Civil Revision Petitions shall stand closed. _______________________ 31st August, 2012. Tsy G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J