The High Court · 2025

Laohusani Raia Sekhar Goud, S/o Late Sridhar goud Aged about 30 years' b19c xffi tiili; ilr,j.' ii.rrrpriviiiJg. ;o Mindat Mahab-ubnagar District. ...ResPondenUPetitioner No'3 IA NO: 1 oF 20124 Petition unrje'' siection 151 cPC praying that in the circun,s:ances stated in the affidavit fitert ir r;rrooort of the petitiJnliiiJHisi Courtmalr t," pl"rrej.il rtay i, o s r,r. is "i;i;il";'Y;" rire cr Acd*icnar seniol civir :LJXHjj::E;;,,,,n. IA NO 1 0F 2025 BETWEEN: 1 J hi,i,.,jFfrif p,iir;,Y&j5,i3tffi hfei?,1?Js,1ffi ,?:;'$si',.#idi.lA"o #i"#"+}giilIdri"i":l*,^ii,iiffiqffi,;r,3,:il*p:;,1!'r;B#r,"n0., B8:['.i,il,T?A?;:^fl"ff ,,.i;Ii;#:?:'#jfJf ig^:ffi S*,#liSg#;i", ...petitioners/Responde nt Nos. 3 to 5 AND #:#ui1.:lii,l j,:-?!:ffi ;".""?'t3iuf, .'iri5;"iy'i;i;*"?.1 years, West 2, Rajura Krishnri;rrr s/o Rajura sathaiah, oo";.*""oondenupetitioner fi :fl ,#f,,j,J#i1 jii.;1;.dru;ffi ;?:i'#ru:i1ffi ;,8,J?,.".,,+?:e#l1"*," in cRp fl :flu*[ jl?iii/:i1J"if#:?ifi:fl%::f :"',rr';fi",'is#:rlEi:,[i:," ...Respondent Nos. ,1 & 2 in CRp Petition unde- lie ::hon 151- of cpc praying that in the circumsre nces stated _.ourt may be preased to j(jio"jr"o "i ljnilSni:,.lftl;";llf".t or tn" pJtiiiil',il"n,n .totottzoisi...._ ,);?ssed in tA No 1 of 2024 in-cnp rrro +i21, Counsel for the petitioner : SRt S RAM BABU Counset for the Respon,Jents: SRI K RAMACHANDRA The Court made the follorving: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Peti tion N o.4125 of 2024 ORDER: ThepresentCivilRevisionPetitionhasbeenfiledunderArticle 227 of the Constitution of lndia assailing the order dated l0'12'2024 passed in I.A.No.724 of 2024 in O'S'No 25 of 2018 by the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Shadnagar (for short 'the impugned order'). 2, Heard Mr.S.Ram Babu, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Ramachandra, leamed counsel for the respondents' Perused the material available on record. 3. Vide the impugned order, the trial court has allowed the I'A' fited by the defendant Nos.3 to 5 under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) read with Section 151 of the code of civil Procedure 1908 (for short 'c.P.c').

4. Vide the irnpugned order, the trial court has granted leave to the petitioners to receive documents mentioned in the said I'A'

5. It is relevant at this juncture to mention the fact that the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent in this case is a suit for declaration' The defendant Nos.3 to 5 upon notice entered appearance and filed their written statements, however, atong with the written statement or I 2 \ at later sr.a.jo, they did not filed certain documenrs in srrpporl of their defence. S Lrt,r;,:,.luently, the suit progressed and the plainrilf--s cvidence was con<:ltLcr:,1 and thereafter wh e the defend.nts e,r,rdence have commencerr. th: defendant Nos.3 to 5 before their eviderce could be stafted mtve<l zi petition under Order VIII Rule 1A (-i) se eking leave of the court t: lroduce certain documents.

6. It vras :;p,:cifically contended by the parly before th,: courr that the docunren,:r rvhich they intend to bring on record ,,\ asr t te certified copies of l(rcrrrrrents which were already marked arrcr r:xhirrited in yet another suit irr r:spect of the very same subject tan,l i.e.. in O.S.No.30 of 2016 \4hrlro thc defendant Nos.3 to 5 are infact tht: pl.intills and the said suit is lor perpetual injunction.

7. It rva: ..ri:; application which stood allowed b1, rhr- trial courl which is unde r:lrallenge in the present civil revisiorr pr:rit,o r. 8. The c()rl€rrtion of the ieamed counsel for the petition.rr.plaintiff is that the le fi:nciant Nos.3 to 5 have not been able to irlll justily as to what pre'r:r r.e rl them from firing these documentr; wren t re written statement rva s f led or even before the issues werr: l].:rnte< [ or at an earlier st6g.:. I t a,as also the contention of the petit ionr:1. rh at though 3 these documents marked and exhibited in O.S.No'30 of 2016 but the petitioners herein were not a party to the said O.S. g. It was also the contention of the petitioner that in the application/petition under Order VIII Rule lA (3) of C-P.C, the petitioners have not shown any bonafide and justifiable grounds which necessitated the production of these documents in support of their defence in the instant suit. Nor has the defendant Nos.3 to5 disclosed the relevance of these documents so far as the suit is concemed suit filed by the plaintiff is concemed and for all these reasons, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for quashment of the order dated 10.12.2024.

10. In support of his contention, the leamed counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Harkesh Singh v. Ved Rajt. He also relied upon the decisions of the Raj asthan High Court in the case of K.N.Sharma v' Mukesh Kumar Vsrma2 and in the case of Dinesh Hingar v. KishanlaP, contending that the petition under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) could not had been allowed by the trial court as a matter of routine without there ' 20lo scc online Del 397 'civil w.P.No.l 08 43/2015. t ' Ci.,il w.P.No.l393 o12024. 4 being anv jrrs.ifiable grounds and materials available tc shown the delay thar las ,r-isen in filing these documents. 11. At th i:; . rrncture, what is relevant to be considerec is the fact that the dr:ll-.rrlanr Nos.3 to 5 has already had filed their per.ition under Order Vlll ltr_le lA (3) for ready reference, thr: si: id rule is reproduced h,:r: in under: Rttle L4 A document which ought to be pr,otlut.etl in Cout t b.., ,l,"-fendant under this rule, but, is not so pt-o,lucecl shall rett. .vithout the leave of the Court, be receiyecl in evidenL e r l his behalf at the hearing of the su.;t.

12. The pl:r rr reading of the aforesaid provision ol. lali by itself would clearly tflects that a power has been conferred up(rn the trial court in a lliven c ircurnstances where documents has no[ t,etrn filed by the defendzLrt rlrng with their written statement or ,t a rater stage can be filed an<l the ;ame can arso be taken on record with tlre Ielve of the court.

13. Thus ,vtet is apparent is that documents whjch har.e not been filed titl that .trge can also be filed, however, it can only be ,iled with the leave ol tht: i:rurt. It is this leave which the defendant lrros.3 to 5 has sought lirr 1r,n" instant case vide I.A.No.72zt of 20..,.4 which stood allowt:d i

14. Another facts which needs appreciation is that all the documents which they intend to bring on record is the documents certified copies that was obtained recently and they are part of the records ofa suit which already stands decided by the very same court in O.S.No.30 of 2016.

15. Lastly, what is necessary to be considered is that fact that the trial court itself while allowing I'A'No'724 of 2024 has protected the right of the petitioner/plaintiff to cross examine the defendant Nos'3 to 5 in respect of these very documents which they have now filed at the time of the cross examlnatlon'

16. Further, the trial court also has reached to the conclusion that except for the fact that these documents have been brought on record at a belated stage, the plaintiff have not been able to show a substantive prejudice that would be cause to the interest of the plaintiff, in the event, if these documents being taken on record' The court also finds that evidence of defendant Nos'3 to 5 has not commenced and therefore also the application could be allowed' 17. As regards the three judgments which have been cited by the petitioners, a bare perusal of those three iudgments would undoubtedly make it clear that there is no dispute so far as the power 6 which is tresto,red upon the trial court to accept the docun..ents which was not prcdLrc(:d earlier or which has been produced at a later stage with the it:ayt: o '' the court

18. Thr-s. h:re is an element of discretion wl.ich hav,: been left upon the rria, <:ourt to consider and decide whetht:r these documents have to be alr::pted or not

19. It is thi-. Jiscretionary power which the trial :ouft harj exercised giving libr,rrv r) the petitioner/plaintiff to cross examine th:: parties in respect o1- these rlocuments as and when the defendant \os 3 to 5 rely on the same irL their evidence.

20. In the ;aid circumstances, the judgment ciled by tlie learned counsel fi:,r' tlr,: petitioner cannot be applied lna strairlht jacket formula to tl'e trri:ts olthe present case.

21. This ( lrL. rt also do not find any jurisdicti,)nal elr,lr or any per-versitv ir llt,finding given by the trial court in all,rwing the petition unrier OrCer VIII Rule lA (3) of C.p.C )', In vierv ,ll the same, this Court does not find an1, me r.its in the instant civil revision petition and the same stands rejected. However, the right as hiLs been conferred by the trial court sc lat as cross 7 examining the witnessess tn respect of these documents stands protected As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any' shalI stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- A.SREENIVASA REDDY AS ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER ,1 . The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District z on" cC to SRI S RAM BABU, Advocate IOPU91- 5 o;; cc to snr K RAMACHANDRA, Advocate [oPUC] 4 Two CD CoPies ADK/gh HIGH COURT DATED:04104,t,2025 ORDER CRP.No.412S of 2024 1 l-15. S 14 14: a( I 5 ,tutit 2q5 f ( a t. \, \i \ REJECTING THE CRP WTHOUT CO,ST'.S 2 6b4-