IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3375 & 3376 OF 2010 Between: Madadi Jaswanth Reddy & 2 others ..... Petitioners AND Renikunta Madusudhan & 5 others ..... Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3375 & 3376 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the orders passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, in I.A.Nos.201 and 202 of 2010 in O.S.No.111 of 2006, dated 14.07.2010. 2. The suit was filed by the original plaintiff for a permanent injunction concerning the suit property against six defendants and on the death of the original plaintiff during the pendency of the suit, his two sons and wife were brought on record as plaintiffs 2 to 4. 3. The evidence of the parties was closed and the suit was coming up for arguments, even during the lifetime of the original plaintiff and at that stage, he filed I.A.No.780 of 2008 to receive documents. As the copies of the Pahanies for the years 2005- 2006 and 2006-2007 were not certified copies, and as the certified copy of the Pahani for the year 2004-2005 was obtained only on 24.10.2008, and as the suit was coming up for arguments, the trial Court dismissed the petition by an order dated 09.06.2010, stating that the documents cannot be received without reopening the suit. Consequently, the plaintiffs 2 to 4 filed these two interlocutory applications, I.A.Nos.201 and 202 of 2010, stating that after filing I.A.No.780 of 2008, the original plaintiff became sick and bed ridden and could not pursue the matter. They claimed that under the circumstances, the suit may be reopened as prayed for in I.A.No.201 of 2010 and the order in I.A.No.780 of 2008 may be recalled and the documents may be received as prayed for in I.A. No.202 of 2010. 4. The trial Court dismissed I.A.No.202 of 2010, in which the respondents did not file any counter/counter affidavit, objecting to the request, on the ground that the petition was filed without mentioning any reason and even otherwise, the law does not permit the Court to recall its own order. The trial Court dismissed I.A.No.201 of 2010 for reopening the suit in consequence to the dismissal of I.A.No.202 of 2010. 5. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 are before this Court, with these two Civil Revision Petitions being aggrieved by the said orders of dismissal, contending that the suit could have been reopened, the documents could have been received and the witnesses could have been recalled at any stage of the suit before delivery of the judgment in exercise of the judicial discretion of the trial Court. The inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are always available to meet the ends of justice and therefore, the plaintiffs 2 to 4 desired that the impugned orders be reversed. 6. Notice before admission was ordered in both the Civil Revision Petitions to the respondents. But, inspite of personal service of such notices, they did not enter appearance. 7. Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioners is heard. 8. The point for consideration is the manner in which interests of justice can be safeguarded concerning the protection of the rights of the plaintiffs 2 to 4 to place relevant evidence before the Court not withstanding their earlier default. 9. It is true that I.A.No.780 of 2008 was filed to receive documents, two of which are not certified copies and the admissibility of which in evidence is, therefore, doubtful. It is also true that even the certified copy of the Pahani for the year 2004- 2005 was obtained with much delay, but any delay in obtaining the certified copy could not have been a ground to refuse to receive the same to be admitted into evidence subject to proof and relevancy. While the affidavit in support of I.A.No.780 of 2008 did not specify any reason for the delay in filing the documents and no request was made for reopening the suit, justifying the dismissal of the petition by the trial Court, the material papers have a copy of a petition for review, which appeared to have been filed against the said orders dated 09.06.2010 in I.A.No.780 of 2008. However, it is not known as to what happened to the review petition. 10. As the original plaintiff died in the meanwhile, it is now left to the plaintiffs 2 to 4 to pursue their rights in the suit property and establish their right to the relief of permanent injunction, claimed in the suit and the earlier defaults of the original plaintiff need not stand in the way of plaintiffs 2 to 4 invoking the inherent and equitable jurisdiction of the trial Court for appropriate reliefs in this regard. Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, submitted that by now, the revision petitioners have obtained certified copies of all the relevant Pahanies and other documents, which may be permitted to be placed on record in this suit in order to comprehensively determine the questions in controversy between the parties on merits. 11. While the impugned orders cannot be considered to be unjustified in the absence of any justifying reasons being given by the plaintiffs in support of their request, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court can be requested to permit the plaintiffs 2 to 4 to have an opportunity to place their documents before the Court to be admitted in evidence appropriately through the concerned witnesses. Though such a relief will necessarily involve further delay in disposal of the suit and will be subjecting the respondents to inconvenience, the same can be adequately compensated by appropriate terms and conditions, as the rules of procedure cannot lead to the parties being punished for their technical lapses. As the ultimate object is to decide the disputes on merits, it would be suffice to meet the ends of justice, if the plaintiffs 2 to 4 are permitted, independent of these two applications, to produce their further evidence in the suit by having the suit reopened through appropriate applications. 12. In the result, the plaintiffs 2 to 4 in O.S.No.111 of 2006, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Siddipet, are permitted to approach the trial Court with appropriate applications for reopening the suit for receiving further oral and documentary evidence and to receive the documents for being admitted into evidence through the concerned witnesses subject to proof and relevancy and to recall the witnesses already examined or to examine any other witnesses for the purpose. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 shall file such applications before the trial Court within 30 days from the date of this order and in default, the trial Court is at liberty to proceed with the suit further in accordance with law and in case of the applications being so made, the trial Court shall determine them in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties, duly considering giving an opportunity to the plaintiffs 2 to 4 in this regard subject to appropriate terms and conditions. 13. The Civil Revision Petitions are allowed accordingly without costs without interfering with the impugned orders in question. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 24th September, 2010 Note: C.C. by one week (B/o) KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3375 & 3376 OF 2010 September 24, 2010. KL