IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4747 and 4760 of 2008 Between: Sunkari Seetharamulu and another ….. PETITIONER(S) AND Nalanagula Venkata Gopala Krishna Rao and another ..... RESPONDENT(S) COMMON ORDER: Civil Revision Petition No.4747 of 2008 is directed against the order 19-09-2008 passed in I.A.No.23 of 2008 in A.T.C.No.3 of 1999 and Civil Revision Petition No.4760 of 2008 is directed against the order, dated 28-01-2008 passed in A.T.A.No.2 of 2003. 2. Since common point is involved in these two Civil Revision Petitions, both are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioners herein are the respondents and the respondents herein are the petitioners in A.T.C.No.3 of 1999. The respondents herein who are the landlords of the land concerned in A.T.C.No.3 of 1999 filed the petition seeking to eviction of the petitioners herein who are the tenants on the ground of default. The parties are referred to as the landlords and tenants for the sake of convenience. 4. The case of the landlords is that the tenants are cultivating land in question since 1946 and agreed ambaram is 45 putties per year for the total extent of Ac.4-08 cents of land. The said ambaram has to be paid on or before 31st January every year and it is to be paid in kind i.e., paddy. Their main case is that the tenants failed to pay ambaram during the year 1997-98. After making several demands, a legal notice dated 17-08-1998 was issued. However, the tenants gave a reply on 26-08-1998 with incorrect allegations. 5. The case of the tenants is that though they offered, the landlords refused to receive ambaram, and they got issued a registered notice to the landlords on 24-01-1998 and subsequently they had sent a demand draft for Rs.7,470/- towards value of 45 putties of paddy on 06-02-1998 and the said D.D. was returned and therefore, they had deposited the said amount in State Bank of Amudalavalasa. It is also their case that for the year 1998-99 also the landlords did not receive paddy and again they had sent a D.D. for Rs.7,320/- towards value of 45 putties of paddy on 20-02-1999 and again the D.D. was returned and their case is that they have not committed any default in payment of ambaram. 6. The trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, allowed the petition and directed the tenants to hand over possession to the landlords. Aggrieved by the same, the tenants filed an appeal A.T.A.No.2 of 2003. During the pendency of the appeal, the tenants filed I.A.Nos.1031 of 2003 and 2612 of 2007 under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to receive certain documents namely, receipts and postal acknowledgements as additional evidence. In an affidavit filed in support of those petitions, the tenants contended that those records could not be produced before the trial Court as those documents were handed over to their Advocate who did not file those documents before the trial Court and that subsequently they obtained those documents and filed at the appellate stage. 7. The learned District Judge, holding that it is necessary to prove those documents by adducing evidence, remanded the matter to trial Court. The trial Court was directed to decide the matter afresh by giving an opportunity to both the parties only to the extent of adducing evidence in proof of or in rebuttal of those documents. Thus, the learned District Judge, Srikakulam, by the orders dated 28-01-2008 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the lower Court. 8. After the matter has been remanded the tenants filed some more documents before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Amudalavalasa, in I.A.No.23 of 2008 the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the said petition. Challenging the said order, C.R.P.No.4747 of 2008 has been filed. 9. Learned counsel for the tenants submitted that the trial Court ought to have considered that these documents were crucial documents and the reasons for not filing those documents were properly explained. 10. Learned counsel for the landlords submitted that the tenants have not properly explained the reason for non-filing those documents and in view of the directions of the appellate court, lower Court rightly rejected those documents. 11. The only point that arises for consideration is Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing I.A.No.23 of 2008 ? 12. Admittedly, the lower appellate Court had remanded the matter with a specific direction to the trial Court to decide the matter afresh by giving an opportunity to both the parties only to the extent of adducing evidence in proof of or in rebuttal of documents filed before it. 13. As seen from the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.23 of 2008 the first petitioner herein had categorically stated in his affidavit that himself and his brother are not well educated and that their previous advocate Sri Appala Naidu passed away during the pendency of the litigation and in the above circumstance, they could not file the documents before the trial Court. It is also his case that his father had kept some papers in the Trunk and they were traced subsequently in the old bundles. 14. When the case of the tenants is that they had offered Ambaram (Maktal) to the landlords and sent it through registered post with acknowledgment due, and that they filed postal acknowledgment receipt, copy of the letter addressed to the landlords and the reply received, as all those documents appear to be necessary to prove their case. 15. The trial Court should allow the parties to adduce the evidence and should not close the doors at the threshold. Of course when there is a direction of District Court, the Junior Civil Judge has to follow the direction of the District Court. Since the District Judge directed the trial Court to decide the matter afresh by giving an opportunity to both the parties only to the extent of adducing evidence in respect of proof and rebuttal of the documents filed before that Court, the trial Court seems to be justified in not receiving additional documents. 16. Having regard to the rival contentions and in view of the circumstances explained by the tenants particularly having regard to the fact that their advocate died, I am of the view that the condition imposed by the appellate Court can be relaxed and the trial Court can be permitted to receive the additional evidence. What is to be seen is whether the documents are genuine, necessary for the just conclusion of the Court. 17. In view of the above discussion, the impugned orders are set aside and the revisions are allowed. Consequently, I.A.No.23 of 2008 in A.T.C.No.3 of 1999 stands allowed. The trial Court is directed to receive those documents and to complete the trial as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J July 29, 2011 Pn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4747 and 4760 of 2008 July 29, 2011