IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4534, 4551 & 4671 of 2011 Between: B. Anasuyamma & 2 others .. Petitioners AND B. Madhusudhan Reddy & 2 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4534, 4551 & 4671 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: All the three civil revision petitions arise out of the orders in interlocutory applications in O.S.No.250 of 2007, on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar. 2. The parties are referred to herein as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 3. O.S.No.250 of 2007 was filed by plaintiffs 1 to 3 against defendants 1 to 3 for declaration of the ownership of plaintiffs 1 and 2 over the suit schedule lands Item Nos.1 to 6 and the ownership of the third plaintiff over the plaint schedule land Item No.7. Consequential permanent injunction, declaration of a Gift Deed, dated 24.04.2007, as null and void and corresponding changes in the entries in the Record of Rights were also sought for. The suit claim was resisted by the defendants by a detailed written statement and any detailed reference to the rival pleadings showing the basis of the respective claims may not be necessary herein. 4. While so, the suit proceeded with trial and the evidence for both parties, oral and documentary, had been completed and the suit is at the stage of arguments for final disposal at which point, the plaintiffs came up with different applications. 5. I.A.No.61 of 2011 was filed by the plaintiffs for reopening their evidence and permit them to lead further evidence on their behalf contending that because of the ill-health of the counsel, the witnesses, residing at far off places including in the neighbouring states could not be examined earlier and their evidence is necessary to be adduced on the original and additional issues, but for which, the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury and prejudice. The defendants contested the request contending that the directions of this Court in the earlier civil revision petitions to dispose of the suit within four months were known to the plaintiffs and their counsel, but the plaintiffs took nine months to produce three witnesses and were dragging on the matter without disclosing the identity or number of witnesses or the documents. The plaintiffs also further protracted the matter by seeking framing of additional issues and the vexatious petition was requested to be negatived. 6. The trial Court passed the order impugned in C.R.P.No.4551 of 2011 on 25.08.2011 noting that as I.A.No.69 of 2011, for receiving documents filed by the plaintiffs, was allowed, the plaintiffs are permitted to examine any of P.Ws.1 to 3 only by filing a necessary application. 7. The said order is questioned in C.R.P.No.4551 of 2011 by the plaintiffs claiming that the failure to produce further evidence by the plaintiffs was due to a cardiac surgery for the counsel for the plaintiffs in January, 2011, and on the framing of an additional issue, the plaintiffs have right to produce further evidence on the additional issue. Therefore, further evidence could not have been restricted to re-examine P.Ws.1 to 3 only. 8. The plaintiffs also filed I.A.No.88 of 2011 for recalling P.W.1 for marking documents claiming that the plaintiffs obtained documents from the High Court which were also filed and exhibiting the documents is necessary for the Court to consider the same. The defendants opposed the request contending that though leave was granted to file the documents on 23.08.2011, the plaintiffs did not show specific documents which they intended to mark through P.W.1 and, hence, the request cannot be considered. 9. The trial Court passed the order impugned in C.R.P.No.4671 of 2011 on 15.09.2011 noting that the plaintiffs filed several petitions to receive documents on several occasions and the plaintiffs did not file any affidavit or additional chief affidavit of the first plaintiff along with the petition. The trial Court opined that in spite of the orders of the High Court, the plaintiffs were dragging on the matter by filing one petition after the other and when the evidence of D.W.1 was already closed, the documents could not have been confronted to him as sought to be argued by the plaintiffs. The trial Court, therefore, declined to consider the request and dismissed the petition as devoid of merits. 10. The said order was challenged by the plaintiffs contending that the absence of any right for the first defendant to execute the registered Gift Deed in question can be probablised only by the production of the terms of compromise before the High Court earlier, apart from the copies of revenue records, orders by the Land Ceiling Tribunal, etc., which are public documents. The plaintiffs, therefore, desired that in view of the reasons specifically explaining the delay that occurred in filing the documents, their request should have been considered. 11. The plaintiffs also filed I.A.No.89 of 2011, for receiving the documents filed along with the petition with the leave of the Court, contending that they obtained these documents from the High Court recently and also obtained certified copies of the Record of Rights, etc. One document was claimed to have been traced in the office of their counsel recently and as the documents are very important and probablised their claim, they were requested to be received. The defendants opposed the said request also referring to various similar petitions filed by the plaintiffs earlier and the trial Court allowing even the belated application in I.A.No.20 of 2011 for receiving another set of documents on payment of costs of Rs.1,500/-. For receiving a fresh set of documents again in this petition, there are no valid reasons and this unending exercise should be put an end to and, hence, the defendants desired that in pursuance of the orders of the High Court to dispose of the suit within four months, the attitude of the plaintiffs should be deprecated and some of these documents also require stamp duty and penalty, while some of the documents have no concern with the pleadings of the parties in the suit. Hence, they desired the request to be negatived. 12. The trial Court passed the order impugned in C.R.P.No.4534 of 2011 on 13.09.2011 referring to Order VII Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “C.P.C”), and observing that though a liberal approach has to be taken to give a reasonable opportunity in this regard and though the merits and demerits of the documents sought to be produced cannot be looked into, the plaintiffs neither referred to those documents in the list of documents appended to the plaint nor did they give any reason as to why the production of the documents became difficult. While the High Court passed orders in C.M.A.No.255 of 2010 on 15.02.2011 to dispose of the suit within four months and earlier petitions in I.A.Nos.723 of 2010 and 20 of 2011 by the plaintiffs were allowed to receive the documents, the repeated request to receive some more documents without any reason for not filing the documents earlier cannot be considered in the light of the principles laid down in UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, (FORMERLY MINISTRY OF DISINVESTMENT), REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI VS. Y.S. HI-TECH SECURE PRINT PVT. LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HYDERABAD[1]. In view of the non-assignment of any reason for not filing the documents, the petition was dismissed with costs, more so, as the suit was at the fag end. 13. The plaintiffs challenged the said order contending that the documents are certified copies issued by the High Court and of revenue records and orders of the Land Ceiling Tribunal, which are all public documents and the plaintiffs gave the reasons for the delay in their affidavit. The evidence cannot be shut by refusing to receive the documents and the documents are not those not relating to the suit and the litigation or beyond the pleadings. Hence, the plaintiffs desired this order also to be reversed. 14. Sri K. Sreenivas, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri K. Mohan Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents are heard. 15. The point for consideration is the extent to which the plaintiffs can be permitted to produce further documents or further oral evidence. 16. It is true that under Order VIII Rule 1-A C.P.C Sub-rule 3 prohibits receiving of a document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant along with the written statement, but is not so produced, without the leave of the Court. It is also true that in UNION OF INDIA’s case (supra 1), a learned Judge of this Court referred to a duty cast on the defendant to produce the documents, upon which the relief is claimed or relied upon by him, along with the written statement. The learned Judge also observed that leave to receive the documents later cannot be granted mechanically at the mere asking of the defendant and the defendant is required to furnish adequate reasons as to why he could not file the documents along with the written statement. The learned Judge, on facts, found assignment of no reasons by the defendant and hence, upheld the refusal to grant leave by the trial Court. 17. It is also true that Order VII Rule 14 C.P.C in Sub-rule 3 indicates an identical rule in respect of documents, which ought to be produced along with the plaint and there is no doubt that identical principles shall apply in such an event also. 18. However, in I.A.No.89 of 2011, the plaintiffs sought to produce the certified copy of the compromise petition, dated 11.04.1988, in C.C.C.A.Nos.86 of 1984 and 22 of 1985, on the file of the High Court, the certified copy of the Settlement of Dispute Agreement, dated 24.02.1986, enclosed to the said compromise petition, the certified copy of the proceedings of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kalwakurthy, dated 04.11.1976, and the true extract of the Record of Rights pertaining to S.No.131 of Karkalpad. While the third and fourth documents could have been secured even while filing the suit, the documents 1 and 2 obtained from the High Court appear to have been issued, from the copies filed along with the material papers, on 25.07.2011, while the date on which the said copies were applied for is not evident from the said copies. The contention of the plaintiffs is that the compromise and the agreement, which are part of the record of the High Court in C.C.C.A. Nos.86 of 1984 and 22 of 1985, will probablise the absence of any right for the first defendant to execute a registered gift deed in respect of the property, which question is in issue in the suit. While no expression of opinion need or should be made on the truth or tenability of such contentions, the documents could not have been considered to be irrelevant to the questions in issue in the suit. Even in the counter affidavit of the defendants, there was no specific denial of the claim of the documents having some relevance to the subject matter of the dispute and similarly, the proceedings of the Land Reforms Tribunal or the copy of the Record of Rights are also concerning the subject matter of the dispute. Even the plaint originally referred to, in the list of documents, the orders of the High Court in the compromise, dated 27.06.1988, which may be linked to the documents now sought to be produced and while considering the grant or refusal of leave to produce documents which are not produced along with the plaint, even the trial Court noted the settled principle requiring a liberal approach to give a reasonable opportunity without looking into the merits and demerits of the documents. In the case before His Lordship in UNION OF INDIA’s case (supra 1), no reasons were assigned at all for the delayed production of the documents in contrast to the present case where some reason is assigned which, even if not reflecting the exercise of due diligence by the plaintiffs all through, could have been considered liberally by imposing appropriate terms to compensate the inconvenience caused to the opposite side by the protraction of the proceedings. Even the impugned order in I.A.No.89 of 2011 does not express any opinion about the documents being irrelevant even if the documents are not straight away related to the suit and the litigation. The trial Court appears to have been vexed with the series of petitions being filed by the plaintiffs from time to time for receiving documents and examining the witnesses notwithstanding the directions of the High Court to dispose of the suit within four months, which, of course, cannot be considered as totally unjustified, but the same may not be sufficient reason for excluding any relevant evidence sought to be produced by the parties before the Court, as the ultimate pursuit of the Court should be to arrive at the merits of the rival claims on all the evidence available for its consideration. 19. Similarly, it is also true that even in I.A.No.61 of 2011, the plaintiffs did not specify as to who are the witnesses proposed to be examined by them. Even if the original issues and the additional issues required the examination of some more witnesses, there cannot be any veil of secrecy over the identity of the witnesses to be examined. Unless proposed witnesses are specified, either the defendants or the Court cannot know the relevance or necessity of examining such witnesses or why such witnesses could not have been examined by the plaintiffs earlier. Even the prayer in I.A.No.61 of 2001 was only to reopen the evidence of the plaintiffs and further permit the plaintiffs to lead evidence on their behalf without any specification of what such evidence is. As already stated, it is the conduct of the plaintiffs themselves which is not diligent or reasonable that obviously compelled the trial Court to confine the permission to examine the witnesses only to P.Ws.1 to 3. Sri K. Sreenivas, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/revision petitioners assured that this will be the last occasion for the plaintiffs to make any request for production of further oral and documentary evidence and on being queried by the Court about the identity of the witnesses, the learned counsel also undertook to have the witnesses named in a list to be furnished to the trial Court immediately, who will not be more than two or three in number. For the same reasons for which production of further documentary evidence has to be permitted on appropriate terms, this request also can be considered without expressing any opinion on the relevance or merits of any such further oral evidence. 20. In I.A.No.88 of 2011, the request was only to recall P.W.1 for marking the documents and while P.W.1, apart from P.Ws.2 and 3, was permitted to be recalled in I.A.No.61 of 2011 by the order, dated 25.08.2011, and P.W.1 was not recalled and examined by the date of I.A.No.88 of 2011 being disposed of, the two orders do not run consistently with each other. While P.W.1 was permitted to be recalled to mark the documents admitted in I.A.No.61 of 2011, he was refused to be recalled in I.A.No.88 of 2011, in spite of an application to receive the additional documents being allowed. This order also needs to be interfered with for the same reasons. 21. Sri K. Sreenivas, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, while not being able to totally justify the obvious protraction of the proceedings by the plaintiffs, if possible ad infinitum, had assured this Court that there will be no further protraction of the proceedings by the plaintiffs if the additional oral and documentary evidence, now sought to be produced, were to be permitted to be produced and admitted into evidence. 22. In view of the history of the case, the eternal repetition of interlocutory requests and non-compliance with the earlier directions of this Court in having the matter disposed of on merits within a fixed time frame, heavy terms should be imposed on the plaintiffs before allowing these applications so as to offset the inconvenience caused to the defendants, while at the same time not shutting out any relevant evidence from consideration for the determination of the merits of the dispute in accordance with law. 23. Accordingly, the orders in I.A.No.89 of 2011, dated 13.09.2011, I.A.No.88 of 2011, dated 15.09.2011, and I.A.No.61 of 2011, dated 25.08.2011, in O.S.No.250 of 2007, on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar, are set aside and the three interlocutory applications will be allowed on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each to the defendants/the learned counsel for the defendants before the trial Court on or before 02.12.2011; in default of payment of such costs, the petitions shall stand dismissed. On I.A.No.89 of 2011 being allowed, the four documents produced along with the application shall be received subject to admissibility, proof and relevancy. On I.A.No.88 of 2011 being allowed, P.W.1 be permitted to be recalled and examined for marking the documents, permitted to be produced in evidence in I.A.No.89 of 2011 and in other interlocutory applications by the trial Court earlier. On I.A.No.61 of 2011 being allowed, the plaintiffs shall file the list of witnesses proposed to be examined in addition to P.Ws.1 to 3 within one (1) week from the date of I.A.No.61 of 2011 being allowed, serving a copy of the said list on the defendants/the learned counsel for the defendants before the trial Court and the said list shall be confined to a reasonable number of relevant witnesses whose affidavits of examination-in-chief shall also be enclosed to the list to be furnished to the Court with copies being furnished to the defendants/the learned counsel for the defendants. As the time fixed by this Court earlier had elapsed long back, the trial Court shall make every endeavour to determine the suit on merits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four (4) months from the date of receipt of these orders and in the event of the plaintiffs not availing the opportunity to recall the witnesses already examined or to produce the witnesses sought to be now examined within a reasonable time, the trial Court is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. The Civil Revision Petitions are ordered, accordingly, without costs. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 1st November, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4534, 4551 & 4671 of 2011 Date: 1st November, 2011 KL [1] 2010 (3) ALT 104