IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.5026 of 2009 Between: Vijay Electricals Pvt. Limited Company, Patancheru .. Petitioner AND Dappu Pentaiah and others .. Respondents Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed against the order dated 17-08-2009 in I.A. No.1177 of 2009 in O.S. No.807 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri K.B. Ramanna Dora, Advocate for the respondents, the Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K.B. Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the respondents at the stage of admission. The dismissal of I.A. No.1177 of 2009 in O.S. No.807 of 2005 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy by the order, dated 17-08-2009 made the defendant approach this Court through this revision. The defendant requested for receiving the documents filed along with a petition styling his petition to be one under Order VIII Rule 1A, Sub-rule (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure contending that the plaintiffs sold the property to one Ramesh under a registered sale deed, dated 24-09-1985 in violation of the terms and conditions of the patta certificate, upon which the Mandal Revenue Officer passed an order on 21-01-1988 after enquiry cancelling the certificate issued in favour of the assignees including the plaintiffs. The defendant claimed that the Government later assigned the land in S.Nos.808/2 to 808/11 in favour of E. Anasuya, a freedom fighter, who sold the property to D. Jai Ramesh under a registered sale deed No.3599/1992. As the original documents were in bank, certified copies of the said documents were filed and they have to be received including the certified copies of the statements of the assignees and the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. The request was resisted by the plaintiffs contending that the documents were fabricated in collusion with the revenue authorities and there was never any sale by the plaintiffs in violation of the terms and conditions of the pattas. The Mandal Revenue Inspector or the Mandal Revenue Officer never conducted any enquiry and the documents not produced along with the written statement and filed at a belated stage, cannot be received in the absence of any justifiable reasons for not filing them earlier. The trial Court passed the impugned order opining that Order VIII Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure mandates that such documents which were not produced along with a written statement while being in possession and power of the defendant, cannot be received in evidence during the hearing of the suit without the leave of the Court. The trial Court felt that in the light of the principle laid down in Ravi Satish v. Edala Durga Prasad[1] about the necessity for adequate reasons to justify the failure to file the documents along with a written statement, the Court cannot grant leave. The trial Court, therefore, refused to receive the documents, as the certified copies of registered sale deeds were received in May, 2006 itself, a month prior to filing of the written statement. The absence of any reason shown by the defendant made the trial Court dismiss the petition without costs. The defendant contended in this revision petition that the documents now sought to be filed were already referred to in the written statement due to which the plaintiffs cannot claim to have been taken by surprise. The trial Court also failed to note that the original documents were kept in bank compelling filing of the certified copies, which are public documents. The revision petitioner contended that all possible evidence should have been permitted to be adduced for adjudicating the controversy in full and the revision petitioner, therefore, desires the impugned order to be reversed. The revision petitioner filed an affidavit during the course of hearing today stating that one Chakravarthy, an employee (legal officer) of the petitioner company, was looking after the case on behalf of the petitioner and he signed the written statement filed before the Court. It was further stated that the said Chakravarthy left the company on 08-12-2007 and the Personnel Manager came to know about the necessity for filing the documents only when the trial of the suit was about to commence. Soon after the instructions of the counsel in this regard, the petitioner traced out the documents and also obtained copies of the relevant documents from the Mandal Revenue Office on 19-02-2007 and filed them into Court. The Personnel Manager, therefore, desired in the affidavit that the delay in filing the documents may be condoned, as it was not wilful or wanton. It is true that by virtue of Order VIII Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure, a defendant is obligated to file all the documents in his possession or power on which he relies on for purposes of his defence along with the written statement with a list. Sub-rule (3) thereof prohibits the Court from receiving any document in evidence on behalf of a defendant at the hearing of a suit if it was a document ought to be produced along with the written statement, but was not so produced, without the leave of the Court. Therefore, while casting a legal obligation on the defendant to produce all the documents on which he relies on for purposes of his defence along with his written statement, the provision leaves sufficient judicial discretion to be exercised by the Court in respect of any such documents produced later during the hearing of the suit, which judicial discretion ought to be exercised for securing the ends of justice and for effectively and completely adjudicating the questions in controversy between the parties to the suit. As the parties should not be punished for any technical lapses and as the Court should not refuse to arrive at a decision on merits after every reasonable opportunity to the parties to produce all their evidence, any hyper technical view should not be taken in this regard. The claim that the registered sale deeds, the certified copies of which are now sought to be produced, were referred to in the original written statement itself, is not in dispute. Similarly, it cannot be in controversy, as a matter of fact, that the documents obtained from the Mandal Revenue Office, Patancheru were obtained much later to the suit and the written statement. The petitioner attributes the default in producing the documents along with the written statement to the conduct of the person who subscribed to the written statement on its behalf and who left the employment of the petitioner later, which cannot be considered to be not a reasonable ground. As there are justifiable reasons for granting leave in this regard, the impugned order has to be reversed, while, of course, the respondents will have every right to question the admissibility and proof of the documents during the course of trial. Accordingly, the order, dated 17-08-2009 in I.A. No.1177 of 2009 in O.S. No.807 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy is set aside and the said petition is allowed without costs, while the respondents are at liberty to question the admissibility and proof of the documents sought to be produced, if they are so entitled and if they so desire, during the course of trial. The civil revision petition is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 19-02-2010 Svv [1] 2009(3) ALT 326