IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.376 of 2010 Between: Maska Mahipal Reddy .. Petitioner AND Badesabolla Chand Bee .. Respondent Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to against the order dated 18-09-2009 in I.A. No.1121 of 2009 in O.S. No.536 of 2005 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge at Sangareddy, Medak District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Chilumala Pratap Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner, the Court made the following HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.376 of 2010 ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against the dismissal of I.A. No.1121 of 2009 in O.S. No.536 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court at Sangareddy by order, dated 18-09-2009. The factual background for the revision petition is that the suit was filed by the revision petitioner for recovery of Rs.90,000/- with interest and costs by enforcing the mortgage against the suit property, which was resisted by the defendant denying any loan from or mortgage in favour of the plaintiff. While some documents were filed by the plaintiff along with the suit, he filed I.A. No.1121 of 2009 requesting to receive the pattadar passbook, title deed, documents of mutation and pahani patrika for 2003-04, which could not be filed by him earlier. The plaintiff claimed that he will suffer irreparable loss and injury, if the documents are not received. The defendant resisted the request claiming the documents to have been fabricated for purpose of the suit and also questioning the absence of any reasons for not filing the documents earlier. The plaintiff attempted to also bring on record an additional affidavit, for receiving which, he had filed I.A. No.1224 of 2009. He stated in the additional affidavit that the documents were misplaced in his house at the time of death of his mother and due to their shifting their residence. He claimed that the documents were subsequently traced and have to be received. The trial Court dismissed I.A. No.1224 of 2009 noting that the additional affidavit was filed after I.A. No.1121 of 2009 was heard in part and to get over the argument of the learned counsel for the defendant about the absence of any reasons for not filing the documents earlier. Considering that the petition was intended to cover the earlier defect and lacuna, the trial Court dismissed the petition with costs. Subsequently, the trial Court passed the impugned order dismissing the petition to receive the documents on the ground that no reason was assigned as to why the documents could not be filed earlier at the time of the filing of the suit. The lack of any reasons led the trial Court to reject the request for receiving the documents long after the commencement of the trial. The plaintiff made another vain attempt to have the documents received by filing I.A. No.1708 of 2009 with the same request and the trial Court dismissed the same, as it felt that the order in I.A. No.1121 of 2009 had become final and will operate as res judicata. The trial Court referred to Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar[1] about such effect of even interlocutory orders. Consequently, the plaintiff knocked the doors of this Court with this revision petition contending that when the defendant disputed the ownership of the mortgaged land, the documents sought to be produced along with I.A. No.1121 of 2009 are necessary and relevant for determination of the questions in controversy between the parties. The plaintiff claimed that for complete adjudication of the suit, it is just and necessary to receive the documents, more so to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Though notice of the revision petition has been served on the respondent/defendant, none entered appearance on her behalf before this Court, while Sri C. Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff contended that the trial Court was unduly harsh against the plaintiff in refusing to permit him to explain the delay in filing the documents by way of an additional affidavit and in not giving an opportunity to place the relevant documents before the Court for a comprehensive and satisfactory determination of the dispute between the parties. It is true that the documents now sought to be produced were not filed along with the plaint and had they been filed along with the plaint, there would have been no necessity for the plaintiff to invoke the judicial discretion of the Court to receive the documents. The trial Court or the defendant, in the orders or the counters respectively, did not question the relevancy of the documents sought to be produced to the questions in controversy between the parties in the suit, while it is a different matter as to what would be the broad human probabilities arising out of such documents, if they are admitted into evidence and proved. Though the plaintiff defaulted in assigning specific reasons for not filing the documents earlier in the affidavit in support of I.A. No.1121 of 2009, he had assigned a specific reason for such default in the additional affidavit filed along with I.A. No.1224 of 2009. On what basis the trial court doubted the truth of the claims made in the additional affidavit, is not stated anywhere in the orders in question and the silence of the plaintiff in the first instance and the belatedness in offering an explanation only after I.A. No.1121 of 2009 was part-heard, appeared to have persuaded the trial Court to believe in the undependability of the explanation offered by the plaintiff. Even if it were so, what all Order VII Rule 14 Sub-rule (3) of the Code of Civil procedure states is that a document belatedly produced should not be received in evidence without the leave of the Court. The provision itself does not lay down any preconditions for exercise of the judicial discretion of the Court in granting leave and it is well settled that rules of procedure are intended to be handmaids of justice, but not to hand over savage results to the parties for any technical lapses. The aim and object of a judicial proceeding being to arrive at the truth after every reasonable opportunity to both parties to place their version before the Court, the Court is expected to be liberal to the extent possible and permissible in respect of such procedural lapses. If so, the trial Court could have been benevolent to the plaintiff in permitting production of the documents in question and to compensate the opposite party for any inconvenience caused due to the delay committed by the plaintiff, it could have ordered appropriate terms. The only ground on which I.A. No.1708 of 2009 failed was due to the order in I.A. No.1121 of 2009 staring against the request. But as the order in I.A. No.1121 of 2009 is under challenge in the present revision petition, the same can be decided on merits irrespective of the result of the three interlocutory applications before the trial Court. Under the circumstances, interests of justice will be best served by permitting the plaintiff to produce the documents in question subject to compensating the defendant through appropriate terms. Accordingly, the order, dated 18-09-2009 in I.A. No.1121 of 2009 in O.S. No.536 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Sangareddy is set aside and the said I.A. No.1121 of 2009 will be allowed on payment of costs of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) by the petitioner/plaintiff to the respondent/defendant within thirty days from today and in default, the petition shall stand dismissed. The civil revision petition is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 05-03-2010 Svv [1] AIR 1964 SC 993