Kalikota Jayaprakash v. Kalikota Sruthi

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds fited herein, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order allowing the C.R.P. by setting aside the s1f,sr5 rlated io.os.ZOZs'in l.A. No. 215 of 2o25 in o.S No. 94 of 2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, at Huzurabad- lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 15'l 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 all further proceedings in o.S. No. 94 of 2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Huzurabad pending the disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. P RAJAGOPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: TANGEDA DAYANANDA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER THE HOITOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3 889 of2O2S ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been hled assailing the order dated lO.Og.2O25 passed in I'A' No 2l5 of 2O15 in O'S' No. 94 of 2016 on tlle file of the Iearned Senior Civil Judge' Huzurabad.

2. I have heard Mr. P. Raj gopal Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and learned counsel for the respondent'

3.1. Briefly stated the relavent facts are that, the revision petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit, filed the present interlocutory application woder Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Ciuit Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC") seeking permission to receive the certifred copy of the deposition of PW'2 (plaintiff) recordedinanothersuit.TheCourtbelou',afterhearingboth sides, dismissed the petition, observing that the petitioner had failed to cross-exarnine PW-l and that a prior petition hled to recallPW.lforcross-examinationhadalreadybeendismissedby the trial Court, which dismissal was conhrmed by this Court in a revision petition and the present application was an attempt to circumvent the earlier judicial orders' 2

3.2. Relyir-rg on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mitthulal and anotlrcr u. State of Modhya Pradesh" (1975) 3 SCC 529, the trial Court observed that, since tJre petitioner failed to avail the opportunity to cross-examine PW. 1, the request to reccive deposition evidence at a belated stage could not be entertained, as such evidence could not be treated as proved in the absenct: ol proper procedure being followed. Accordingly, the appli,:ation u'as dismissed.

4.1. l,earned counsel for the revision petitioner/defandant contcnds that the cleposition of the plaintiff as pW.2 in O.S. .lVo. 89 of 2O13 is a relevant piece of evidence for determining the issr-rcs inr.olvcrl in ihe present suit, as it pertains to the same sublei:t mat t('r ancl parties. It is argued that the Court below erred in rejet:ting the application at the threshold by rendering findings on admissibility, rather than merely receiving the document subJect lo proof and relevalcy. Such an approach, according to the learned counsel, amounts to exercising jurisdiction with m:rterial irregularity. He further submits that the rt:liance placed by the trial Court on Mittl.atlal (supra) is misplaced, as that judgment pertains to criminal proceedings and is not applicabk: to the present civil context. 3

4.2. He places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'lcle Supreme Court in Leualat Pedda Reddamma and otlers u. Gottumukkala Venkota Subbamma and another, (20221 LiveLaw (SC) 533, wherein the Apex Court held that, at the stage of trial, the Court ought to adopt a liberal approach in permitting parties to produce relevant evidence to enable effective adjudication of the &ls. It was emphasized that mere delay or previous procedural lapses should not be a ground to reject material documents when such evidence could assist in a just and complete adjudication. Hence, it is subrnitted that refusal to receive the deposition in the present case causes grave prejudice to the petitioner's defence.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff submits that the order of the trial Court is well reasoned and does not warrant interference. It is contended that the conduct of the petitioner throughout the proceedings reflects a pattern of detay and abuse of process. The petitioner failed to cross- examine PW. 1 despite repeated opportunities, and the orders of both the trial Court and this Court conclusively closed that stage. Allowing the present petition, it is argued, would amount to reopening settled proceedings under the guise of introducing new documents. The learned counsel also submits that the \ 4 deposition sought to be produced pertains to an unrelated suit and cannot be treated as automatically relevant or admissible. Hc further contends that, as the litigation is between a fattrer and claughter, the petitioner's repeated attempts to introduce extraneous material at thc stage of re-examination of DW. 1 would only serve Lo protract the trial. Accordingly, dismissal of the rcvision pel ition is sought.

6. Ihave carcfulli' peruscd the material available on record.

7. Admitl,eclly, thc suit is at the stage of the defendant's evidence, and thc (iourt has permitted re-examination of DW. 1. The petitioncr nou. seeks to produce a certifred copy of the deposLtion o[ the rcspondcntT plaintiff recorded in another civil suit be twccn thc sarne partics. The genuineness of the document or its sourct: is not rr-r dispute. The issue, therefore, is limited to whether such a document can be received at this stage.

8. It is ri scttled principle of law that reeption of doanments and marking oJ'euidence arc two distinct stages. While receiving a docttmcnt into record does not by itself arnount to treating it as prrrvcd or erdmitting it in evidence, the Court retains the discretion to cletermine its relevancy and admissibility at a later I stagr:. This principle has been consistently upheld in several 5 Tarajee Khimchnnd Stnntilal Panclwl u' clecisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court' includ\tg Bipin State ofGujarat, (2001) 3 SCC 1' and Sait Yelamartr So/tYam, (1971) 1 SCC a56' that objections regarding admissibility wherein it was held should not prevent the Court from receiving documents on file' subject to Proof and relevancY' u In the present case, while the petitioner may have failed to 9. avail earlier opportunities during cross-exarnination' such omission alone should not preclude him from producing a document that may have a bearing on the merits of the case' Denying the petitioner an opportunity to place relevant evidence on record would amount to preventing him from presenting his case in its entirety and could result in miscarriage of justice'

10. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that thc trial Court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application outright' The trial Court ought to have permitted the production of the document, subject to proof and relevancy' without expressing any opinion on its evidentiary value or admissibility at this stage. Recefving a document does not automatically render it proved, and the opposing party retains full right to object to its admissibitity at the appropriate stage' t ! ) \ 'l \ 6 1 1. Accordingly, the impugnecl order dated lO.Og.2O2S passed in I.A. No, 215 of 2O 15 in O.S. No. 94 of 2016 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, is set aside. The trial Court is directcd to receive the document subject to proof and relevancy, and to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 12. It is, hou,ever. made clear that the present order shall not entitle the petitioner to circumvent earlier orders of the trial Courl or this Cotrrt u,ith respect to the closure of cross_ examination ol pW_ 1, nor sharll it conl.cr any right to seek recall of PW. 1 or re-opening of the cvidence already concluded.

13. Ac<:ordinglv, ttre Civil Rcvision pctition is allowed, subject to thc abovc obsenations_ Thcre shall be no order as to costs. Misccllaneous l)etirrons, pcnding if any, shall stand closed. SD/- A.H.S. ASSIS GOWRI SHANKAR TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII \\ \ The S^elr ior Crvil Judge at Huzurabad. Karimnaqar District. one CC to SRI P RAJAGOPAL REDDY Advoiate tOpUCI One CC to SRt TANGEDA DAYANANDn nAo Abvbiate iOpUCl Two CD Copies SECTION OFFICER To,

1. 2. J. 4. K,/SA 4,, HIGH COURT DATED:21 11112025 ,Z.aoi CRP.No.3889 of 2025 ) i: ti"=rA]*i.hr, I( 2 3 ftiq 2026 c'. -) * * PATciir-9 ---- ":- CIVIL REVISION PEITITION IS ALLOWED. b 1/