The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the peiition, ihe Hign Court may ne fteaseo to stay allfurther proceedings in oS No. 420 of 2023 peioing on the file of principal Junior Civil Judge - Cum - Judicial Magistr:ate ot First Ci-ass at Rajanna Sircilla pending disposal of the CRp counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. B ARJUN RAo, Advocate counsel for the Respondents: smt. B.sHtRrsHA, Advocate The Court made the foilowing: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUI(ARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3461 OF 2o25 ORDEIT: l'his Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 3O.O7.2O25 passed in I.A. No. 2BB of 2025 in I.A. No. 816 of 2023 irr O.S. No. 420 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajanna Sircilla.

2. l{eard Mr. B. Arjun Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Smt. B. Shirisha, learned counsel for the respondent.

3.1. l'he revision petitioners, who are defendants in the suit, filed a petition under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Ci',,il Proct:durre, l9O8 (CPC) seeking permission of the trial Court to receirre certain documents on record.

3.2. l'he trial Court, upon consideration, dismissed the petition observing that the documents sought to be produced \,\rere irrelevant, inadmissible, and unjustified, thereby declining to rccr:ive them. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been liled. 2 \

4.7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the documents sought to be filed are public records relating to proceedings initiated by the respondent/plaintiff herself before the District Collector during the pendency of the interlocutory application in the suit. He contends that these documents are relevant for effective adjudication of the lis, as they reflect subsequent developments before revenue authorities having a bearing on the property in dispute.

4.2. He further submits that the petitioners merely sought to bring these documents on record, leaving their relevance, admissibility, and evidentiary value to be determined at the appropriate stage of trial. Placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Bipin shantilal Panchal u. state of Gujarat, (2001) 3 SCC 1 and R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder u- Arulmigu Visuesarasuami Temple, (2003) 8 SCC 752, he argues that rejection of documents at the stage ol liling amounts to premature adjudication and undermines the right of parties to present their full case. Thus, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and for a direction to the trial Court to receive the documents in question and consider them at the appropriate stage. 3

5.1. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supports the impugrred order and submits that the trial court rightly exercis,ed its discretion. She contends that the petitioners' attemSrt to introduce new documents at this advanced stage r.t'as belate<l, particularly when their written statement and prior docurrentary evidence were already on record.

5.2. ishe further submits that the documents sought to be introdrrcecl u.ere issued by the revenue authorities subsequent to the filing of the suit, and no corresponding pleadings exist in the written statement to justify their admission. Therefore, the trial Court, having observed that the documents were post-suit developments and unrelated to the original cause of action, rightly dismissed the petition.

6. I hilve perused the material available on record and considered the submissions of both learned counsel.

7. It is an admitted position that the petitioners filed the preserLt application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) CPC seeking permir;sion Lo produce nine (9) documents which came into existence aftcr institution of the suit. The pending interlocutory application (t.A. No. 816 of 2023l, relates to the same dispute, and the documents in question appear to be relating to 4 proceedings initiated by the respondent/plaintiff before the District Collector, as evidenced by the representation dated 07.1O.2O24. Since the suit was filed in 2023, it is eviclent that these documents reflect subsequent proceedings initiated b-v the plaintiff post-suit. The petitioners seek to bring them on record to demonstrate those developments and their bearing on the pending issues.

8. Under order vIII Rule 1A(3) cPC, the court has discretion to receive documents at any stage of the proceedings' if sufficient cause is shown for their non-production earlier' The rule must be interpreted liberally, especially r'r'here the documents are public records or oftlcial acts, the authenticity of which is not in disPute. g.InSmf.RoshanDeenu.PreetiLal,(2oo2)lSCCioo,tlrc Hon'ble Supreme Court held that procddural rulcs are intepded to advance justice and should not be interpreted rigidly to defeat substantive rights. Likewise, in Bipin shantilal Panchal (supra), it was held that objections as to admissibilit-V or relevanc-v should ordinarily be decided at the stage of final arguments rather than at the stage of production, unless the document is patently inadmissible in law. \ \ 5 -

10. Applying these principles, it is evident that the trial Court erred in adjudicating the relevance and admissibility of docum:nts at the stage of their mere production. The petitioners have not sought marking or reliance upon the documents at this stage but only their reception onto record, subject to proof and re.evancy. As the interlocutory application (1.A. No. 816 of 2023l. is still pending, the trial Court ought to have received the docum,:nts, leaving their evidentiary value to be assessed at the final stage o[ hearing. Therefore, this Court finds that the trial Court's reasoning, rejecting the petition solely on the ground of irreleve,nce and belateclness, is unsustainable in law. 1 1. I n light of the foregoing discussion and consistent with the setlled principles governing Order VIII Rule 1A(3) CPC, this Court is of the considered view that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the petitioners are permitted to place tire documents on record, subject to proof and relevancy at a later stage. Accordingly, the impugned order warrants interference to that limited extent.

12. F'or the reasons aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 3'O.O7.2025 rn I.A. No. 288 of 2025 in I.A. No. 816 of 2023 in O.S. No. 42O of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal Junior civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First class, 6 Rajanna sircilla, is set aside. The trial court is directed to receive the petition-mentioned documents on record, subject to proof, relevancy, and admissibility, which shall be determined at the appropriate stage in accordance with law and proceed to decide I.A. No.816 of 2023 on its own merits, uninfluenced b_y any observations made herein. There shall be no order as to costs, ,t'',"13. Accordingly, the civil Revision petition is allowed. No costs. r) shall stand closed. SD/- A.JAYASREE ASSISTANTREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To,

1. The file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge - Cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Rajanna Sircilla'

2. One CC to Mr. B ARJUN RAO Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Smt. B.SHIRISHA, Advocate [OPUC] tr 4. Two CD CoPies LW Y-RClPSL HIGH COURT DATED i 1811112025 I t ORDERI CRP.Ncr.3461 ot 2025 tntr ') Y 2 5 ri:B 2l]2[ * * Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is Allowed. b v