IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTYFIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.NO : 84 of 2009 Between: Voruganti Prabhakar ..... PETITIONER AND M/s. Vijays Real Estates, Kodad and four others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.84 OF 2009 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 7- 1-2009 passed in O.S.No.3 of 2006 on the file of Ii Additional District Judge, Nalgonda District, at Suryapet, whereby and where under the learned Additional District Judge over-ruled the objection raised by the plaintiff for marking the following documents: 1) Authorization to effect settlement dated 18.2.2005; 2) Agreement consenting for adjudication of the dispute by elders dated 24.2.2005; 3) Award dated 16.1.2006 passed by the elders viz., Para Sitaiah, Ch.Lakshminarayana Reddy, G.Nageswara Rao and P.Satyababu residents of Kodad. 2. Background facts in nutshell leading to filing of this revision by the petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.3 of 2006 are: The plaintiff-Voruganti Prabhakar filed a suit for rendition of accounts in respect of M/s Vijaya Real Estates, Kodad. The relief sought for in the suit reads as under: a) The accounts of the partnership firm M/s Vijaya Real Estates, Kodad be settled through an experienced Chartered Accountant or any other experienced person acquainted with accountancy. b) The defendants be directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,05,500/- (Rupees ten lakhs five thousand five hundred only) or any other such amount ascertained from the settlement of accounts to the plaintiff towards his share of profits from the business. c) A personal decree against the defendants 1 to 5 be granted in favour of the plaintiff for recovery of the above awarded profit amounts from their person and property; d) Costs of the litigation be awarded. e) Any other or alternative relief which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper may also be awarded. The plaintiff claims that he is one of the partners in the firm under the name and style of M/s Vijaya Real Estates, Kodad. As per the terms of the partnership deed disputes among the partners are required to be resolved by arbitration. According to the plaintiff, the partnership came to an end and it stood dissolved in January, 2005. Since disputes arose with regard to settlement of accounts of the partnership firm, parties mutually agreed for settlement of accounts by Para Sitaiah, Ch.Lakshminarayana Reddy, G.Nageswara Rao and P.Satyababu. Since the arbitrators failed to adjudicate the disputes and pass an award the plaintiff approached the Court seeking the reliefs stated supra. 3. For completion of narration of facts, I deem it appropriate to refer para 5 of the plaint, which reads as under: “5. As per terms of the partnership agreement if any dispute arise among the partners the same had to be got resolved by arbitration by appointing common arbitrator or arbitrators. Though the business was run smoothly in both the firms disputes arose among the partners with respect of settlement of accounts as some of the partners have utilized amounts of the firm for their personal affairs and some of the partners could not collect the due amounts from their respective customers. Thus the partnership has come to an end and it is dissolved in January, 2005. There were quarrels and police interfered and advised plaintiff and other defendants to get the matter settled amicably. As such they had mutually chose Sri.Para Seethaiah, Sri.Paidimarri Sathi Babu, Sri.Ch.Laxminarayan Reddy, Sri.Gundapaneni Nageshwar Rao and Sri.Muthavarapu pandu Ranga Rao all residents of Kodad as arbitrators for settlement of disputes and accounts on 26.2.2005. The said arbitrators agreed to settle the dispute and pass award within two months therefrom. However, till now the arbitrators have not passed any award and have not even taken the statements or claims of any of the partners. The said arbitrators have taken custody of all the account books, ledgers, cash books and other relevant documents of both the firms. Further, the said arbitrators had illegally taken blank signed promotes from the plaintiff and his family members apart from some blank signed cheques and kept with them. The plaintiff also came to know that such promotes and cheques were also taken from other partners by the arbitrators. Since no award has been passed and the plaintiff was to get huge amount towards his share, the plaintiff gave a letter to the arbitrators requesting them to pass an award and to provide him a copy of such award on 21.1.2006, however, there is no response from them. The plaintiff submits that the arbitrators being politicians have colluded with the defendants who are also politicians and are not settling the dispute and further the plaintiff is also being forced and threatened that he himself was liable to the tune of huge amounts to other partners. The plaintiff further submits that he came to know that the arbitrators having colluded with the defendants handed over all the account books, ledgers and other documents to defendant No.2 without settling the account. Thus, the plaintiff apprehends tampering of accounts by the defendants and cause loss and troubles to him. There is absolutely no scope of any arbitration award from the above said arbitrators and the dispute may be continuous for indefinite period, as such having no other course available the plaintiff is compelled to file the suit for rendition of accounts of M/s Vijaya Real Estates, Kodad.” 4. D2 filed written statement reporting no objection for settlement of accounts through an experienced Chartered Accountant. It is further stated that the disputes between the parties with regard to both the firms were referred to Para Sitaiah, Ch.Lakshminarayana Reddy, G.Nageswara Rao and P.Satyababu on 18.2.2005 for settlement. On the advice of elders there was an understanding between the plaintiff and D2 to D4 with regard to steps to be taken, the same was reduced into writing on 24.2.2005 and all the above persons have put their signatures along with the said four elders. Para 17 of the written statement needs to be noted and it is thus: “17. After the repeated demands made by the defendants and on the advice of the elders the accounts of both the firms were verified by Sri Mahankali Seethaiah R/o Komarabanda village at the option of the plaintiff. Due to the non-cooperation of the plaintiff, the accounts of both the firms could not be finalized immediately. Basing on the said accounts, the above elders have passed a resolution on 16.1.2006 and the same was reduced into writing on the same day. The said document was scribed by Sri Padimarri Satya Babu and it was signed by all the four elders i.e. Sri Para Seetaiah, Sri.Ch.Laxminarayan Reddy, Sri Gundapuneni Nageshwar Rao and Sri Padimarri Satya Babu. As per the said document the plaintiff has to pay Rs.94,05,684.00 to the firms, the 2nd defendant has to pay Rs.7,85,011.00 to the firms, the firms have to pay Rs.5,30,812-00 to the 3rd defendant, the firms have to pay Rs.2,61,839-00 to the 4th defendant and the firms have to pay Rs.45,696-00 to 5th defendant. All the partners of both the firms have agreed for the above settlement and the plaintiff to pay the amount within two months. The plaintiff has filed the present suit with malafide intention to avoid the said payment. It is submitted that the plaintiff has utilized the amount of Swathi Finance, Kodad in the above two firms from 2001 to 2005 and the said accounts were also verified and finalized by Mahankali Seethaiah R/o Komrabanda village.” 5. After settlement of issues, parties commenced adducing evidence on their behalf. The plaintiff completed his evidence. Thereupon, the defendants commenced examination of the witnesses on their behalf. The defence produced Pydimarri Satyababu as DW.3 on their behalf. They filed affidavit of DW.3 on 6.1.2009. The said Pydimarri Satyababu who is one of the elders produced the above referred to three documents. The plaintiff raised objection for receiving the documents on behalf of the defendants and so also marking them as exhibits. The learned Additional District Judge over ruled the objections raised by the plaintiff for receiving as well as marking the above referred to three documents on behalf of the plaintiff by an order dated 7.1.2009. The said order is assailed in this revision. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the documents sought to be received in evidence is not supported by any petition as provided under Order 8 Rule 1-A (3) of CPC and therefore the defendants cannot be permitted to place on record the above referred three documents. A further submission has been made that the award passed by the arbitrators is required to be stamped as per Article 12 of Schedule (1) of Stamp Act and since the award is not properly stamped the same cannot be received in evidence. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in N.Balraju and another v. G.Vidhyadhar[1], Maddula Brahmaiah v. Rama Financial Services[2], Naseema and others v. B.Nageswara Reddy and another[3] a n d Sunder v. Mohd. Ismail[4]. In the last cited decision, a Division Bench of this Court considered the nature of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Para 16 of the Judgment reads as hereunder: “The Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, 2003 (5) ALD 36 (SC) = (2003) 6 S.C.C. 675, after a detailed survey of the entire case law as to the nature of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India observed that the supervisory jurisdiction is exercised only for the purposes of keeping the subordinate Courts within bounds of their jurisdiction. The Supreme Court observed “when a Subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step into exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.” The Supreme Court further held that the supervisory jurisdiction is not available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings, such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and thereby resulted in grave injustice or gross failure of justice. Where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view, the error cannot be called grossly patent. The Apex Court cautioned that the High court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into a Court of appeal and indulge in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character.” 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants submits that the trial Court considered the contents of the documents sought to be received in evidence and recorded a finding that they are admissible by giving cogent and convincing reasons and therefore, the order impugned in the revision does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He would also submit that Document No.1 is only an authorization to fix settlement. He would further submit that the documents are produced by a witness, therefore, Order 8 Rule 1-A & B has no application. 9. Indisputably, DW-3 is one of the elders chosen by the parties for settlement of disputes. The plaintiff himself stated in para 5 of the plaint that DW-3 is one of the Arbitrators chosen for settlement of the accounts of the firm. Order 8 Rule 1-A (3) reads as here under: “ A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit”. 10. Respondents/defendants have specifically pleaded in the written statement that the Arbitrators passed resolution on 16-1-2006 and reduced the same into writing on the same day. The respondents/defendants produced one of the Arbitrators namely Sathya Babu as witness. The said witness is a third party to the proceedings. Under Order XVI Rule 1-A any party to the suit may without applying for summon under Rule 1 bring any witness to give evidence or to produce the documents. It means a party to the suit can produce the witness without obtaining any summons. The plaintiff did not choose to raise any objection with regard to examination of Sathya Babu as DW-3 without being summons from the Court. His objection is only with regard to receiving three documents stated supra. The document Nos. 1 and 2 are authorization letter and agreement for the parties consenting for the adjudication of the disputes by the elders. They neither required stamp duty under Stamp Act nor registration under Indian Registration Act. The third document is an Award, under Article 12 of Schedule-I of the Stamp Act, the Award is required to be stamped. Since the Award, dated 16-1- 2006 is not stamped, the same is inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court to the extent of receiving the Award dated 16-1-2006 is liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed setting aside the order passed in O.S.No. 3 of 2006 to the extent of receiving the Award, dated 16-1-2006 in evidence. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 25th August, 2009. Tnb/kvr [1] AIR 2004 A.P. 516 [2] 2009 (1) A.L.D. 103 [3] 2008 (6) A.L.D. (NOC 101) [4] 2004 93) A.L.D. 318