The High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of final decree proceedings in OS No. 45 of 2015 On the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge Vikarabad District pending disposal of the main C.R.P, Couhsel for the Petitioners: Sri Koppula Gopal Counsel for the Respondents: Rakesh Sanghi The Court made the following: ORDER 6 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAXA CIVIL R EVISION PETITI ON No. 2992 oF 2024 o RDER: ThLs Revision is directed against the docket order dated 13.O8.11(t24 in I A No' 106 of 2Cl24 in O'S No' 45 :i 2015 on the file of lLLe Principal District Judge's Court at Vikarabad' Ilc spondents herein are plaintiffs t'ho fik:d the 2. mentioned su( for partition and separate possession cf suit schedule itern'; 1 to 3landed properties and the said suit is now under trail. Fetitioners - defendants had taken out the subject Application utrder Order VIII Rule 1A(3) read with Seclion 151 CPC to receivc certified copy of gift deed Doc No 641 131i1 F by condoning t)-rt: delay that was caused in frling the docurnent' In the said Application, it is stated that the case of plaintiffs is that late Anjan Feddy succeeded the suit lands from hi:; father Hanmanth R':ddy, and defendants had stated that the'r' stated inthewritterstatementthatAnjanReddybeingthe:rbsolute ou,ner of s;tLtt land, he conveyed al1 his rights under gift settlement ,1eed and the sale deed and they filed the dor:uments executed blr Late Anjan Reddy in their favour and the'r' came to knowrecerLtythesuitlandsweretheabsoluteproperlyofone //' 2 Smt. Laxmamma who is sister of Anjan Reddy's father and the said l"axmamma performed marriage of Anjan Reddy with her duaghter Buchamma; after marriage, Buchamma died and she u,as looked after by Anjan Reddy and the said Laxmamma during her lifetime gifted the suit lands to Anjan Reddy under registered gift deed Document No. 64/1351F and recently they obtained certified copy of gift deed executed by Laxrnamma in favour of Anjan Reddy. The said document being crucial and it is a link document to conveyance de'ed and transfers made by Anjan Reddy in their favour and the said document reveals that suit lands are not ancestral properties in the hands of Anj an Reddy and since they do not know about the said document at the time of hling the written statement, they could not file the same and their failure to hle the same is not intentional.

3. Piaintiffs hled counter to the said Application stating that the alleged gift deed is entireiy outside the pleadings of the defendants and there is literally no mention of the said document in the entire written statement, hence, the same is inadmissible in evidence. , t -) o Learned District Judge in the order under Rcvision 4. observed that from the materiai on record' it is manift:st that certified copy 'rf the document was obtained by rlefendrrnts on 25.11.2023 trut the present Application was hlerd on 07 .O2.2O24; il perr.sal of the averments of the wrjtten stitr-ement filed by defenctants in the suit shows that there is no reJ'crence about the saicl document under which late Anjan Reddy stated to have succe:ded to the suit lands' The learnecl Judge relying on the judgrrent of this Court in Kgatham Rajkumar tt' Vaddepalli trlaiamani (2023(5) ALD 530 (TS)' vvherein it was heldthatintheabsenceofanyfoundationwrthregllrdtoa document irr the pleadings, such document cannot be received at a belated :;tage, held that the said document' at this stage' Cannotbere.:eivedonbehalfofdefendantswherethtlr.eisno pleading will: reference to the same in the written statement' and thus disrnissed the Application' L,earned counsel for petitioners - dt;fendants 5. Sri Koppulzr 'llopal submits primarily that Court below ought to haveseenthathisclientshavestatedspeciallyintheirwritten statement that suit schedule lands are not ancestral properties of late Anj zrrL Reddy and the said Anj an Reddl- is the absolute r I 4 owner and possessor of said lalds. According to him, Court below failed to see that in fact at the time of filing the written statement, they are not aware of the registered gift deed and reqently a copy was obtained which was executed by Laxmamma in favour of Anjan Reddy; that itself clearly indicates that suit schedule lands are not ancestral property of late Anjan Reddy.

6. Sri Rakesh Sanghi, learned counsel for respondents - plaintiffs submits that there is no error in the order under Revision, hence the same is liable to be dismissed. He relied on the judgment in Kgatham Rajkuntar's cose (supra) to submit that defendants can be permitted to Iile documents which were not filed along with the written statement with the leave of the Court. The Court is having discretion to grant leave to the defendart. At the same time, the discretion conferred upon the Court to grant such leave is to be exercised judiciously. There is no straightjacket formulae to grant leave by the Court on good cause being shown by the defendant. Thus, tJ.e Court has to exercise power conferred on it under Order VIII Rule 1(A) judiciously. , , ) ,. In the light of the pleadings and conte ntions 7. canvased by l>oth the parties, there is no necessit5r lor this Court to go il1to the merits of the case Suffice' to ilave a cursory look at Rule 1 A of Order VII C P C which provLcles the procedure for llroduction of documents by the del'endants which is as under: " tlt: Dutg of defendant to ptoduce documerLts upon uhich retief is claimed or relied upon bg 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 ccunter- claim,heshallentersuchdocumentinalist,andshallproduce itinCourtvrl-renthewrittenStatementispresentedbyh'imand shall,atthesametimedeliverthedocumentandacopl'lhereof' to be hlled vgit-h the written statement' (1)) Where any such document is not rn the possession or power of the defendant, he sha11' *.herever possible, stett,: in whose possession or power it is' (1)) A document which ought to be prorlr:ced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is r-tot so ;l roduced shallnot.withouttheleaveoftheCourt,bereceivedint:vidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit' i I I 6 f:

8. Sr-rb-rule (1) rnandates the defendants to produce the documents in their possession before the Court and hle the same along with written statement. They must list out the documents which are in thbir possession or power as well as those which are not. In case defendants do not frle any document or copy thereof along with written statement, such a document shall not be allowed to be received in evidence on their behalf at the hearing of the suit. However, this will not apply to a document produced for cross- examination of plaintiffs witnesses or handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. Sub-ru1e (3) states that a document which is not produced at the time of hling the written statement, shall not be received in evidence except with the leave of the court. RuIe (1) of Order 13 of C.P.C. again makes it mandatory for the parties to produce their original documents before settlement of issues. Sub-rule (3), as quoted above, provides.a second opportunity to defendants to produce the documents which ought to have been produced in the Court along with written statement, with the leave of the court. The discretion conferred upon the Court to grant such leave is to be exercised I , 7 judiciously. W'hi1e there is no straight jacket formula' this leave can be granle,l by the Court on a good cause being showrL Tn,: Hon'lcle Supreme Court in a catena of cases' g. has reiterated that procedure is the handmaid of ]r-rstice' Procedural ancl technical hurdies shall not be allowed to come in the u,ay ol' lhe Court while doing substantiaL justice lf the procedural vio iation does not seriousiy cause prejudice to the adversary party, Courts must lean towards doing substantiai justice rather than relying upon procedural and terc hnical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journel/ towards truth which is the foundation ol' justice and the courl, rs required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlyinrg truth in every dispute. Therefore, thr: Court should take a lenient view when an Application is rrLade for production o: r.he documents under sub-rule (3)'

10. In view of the afore-extracted provision of l:ru' and the prececlent set out by the Hontrle Apex Court' the ortly issue to be decide<l is whether defendants have taken the plea earlier in the written statement or not. From a perusal of the written statement annexecl as material papers, at page 3C, it is manifestly cl.ear that defendants mentioned as '[n fact, the suit 8 fr, properttes are the exclusiue proper-ties of late Anjan Reddg and he alienoted and gifted the suit properties during his life time to defendants and the names of defendants are dlso mutated in reuenue records during the li|e time of late Anjan Reddg and the defeidants ore in exclusiue possession of the suit lands since long time and plaintiffs are hauing knou-iedge of the same and tLey are knotoledge about the exclusiue possession of defendants ouer the suit lands. Tle defendants ore in exclusiue possession ouer tte suit land, Sg.No. 163, to an extent Ac-10.03 gts. and Sg.No. 134, to an ertent Ac.14.08 gts., since 1983 Luith the knouledge of the plaintiffs, likeuise, the defendant No.2 and 3 are in exclusiue possession of the suit lond, Sg.No. 758 to an extent of Acs.1O.05 gts., since 1994 and the possession of defendaits is utithin the knowledge of plaintiffs ond ptaintiffs haue got no ight tahatsoeuer ouer the suit properties and plaintiffs neuer in possession of the suit lands- Hence' it is denied that plaintiffs and,defendant No.1 and fathet, Anjan Reddg are enjogment ttb suiti properties jointtg euen duing the tife time of their father and after his deatLt" 1 1 . In the light of the clear and categorical statement made by defendants in their written statement, it cannot be said I t i i i ,, i, o that therc is no pleading with reference to the docurnent in question. Defendants have hled t-he subject App'hcation assigning coEient reason for not producing the documertt along with wntte n statement. It cannot be disputed that this document is :nr:cessary for arriving at a just decision in the suit. This Court th.erefore, of the view that the learned District .Judge ought to ha.re granted leave to produce the document. The Order under R--vision is therefore, liable to be set aside. 12 . T'h e Clvil Revision Petition is accordingly, trllowed, setting aside tl-re order dated 13.08.2024 in I.A.No l,06 <tl 2024. Consequenth', LA.No. 106 of 2024 is allowed. No costs.

13. Cc,nsequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stanrl closed. . Sd/. T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFTCER To,

1. 2. a J, 4. /gl VTI The Principal t)istrict Judge Vikarabad District sffi $ l{ 3, i'n:ns:r.{iili i..l"""g'l" 13"',?\ Two CD CoPies HIGH COURT DATED: 2810112025 ORDER CRP.No.2992 of 2024 -! (;. 9TA ,i,,.:/,r rl5 /Ull , *-ia, on tr. -"" ' -t::-,:;_- ALLOWING THE CRP I I I I I I ! E a5 /rl ol.