IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1516, 1519, 1599 and 2191 of 2011 Between: Mohd. Jahangir & 2 others .. Petitioners AND Manikonda Venkataiah & 28 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1516, 1519, 1599 and 2191 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: All the four civil revision petitions are directed against the common order passed by the I Additional District Judge’s Court, at Mahabubnagar, on 24.01.2011, in I.A.Nos.1242, 1243, 1244 and 1245 of 2010 and Memo in C.F.R.No.2972 of 2010 in O.S.No.5 of 2005, by which the petitions were dismissed and the Memo was rejected without costs. 2. The suit in O.S.No.5 of 2005 was at the stage of arguments before the trial Court at which stage these applications were filed by defendants 2 to 4/the present revision petitioners contending that 16 documents filed along with I.A.No1243 of 2010 are required to be admitted into evidence and proved to establish that the predecessors of defendants 2 to 4 were the owners and possessors of old S.No.217/A and the predecessor of defendants 13 to 17 was the owner and possessor of old S.No.217/AA. The absence of any concern for Hashmathunnisa Begum with old S.No.217, the torn condition of Khasra Pahani of 1954-55, the sales of land out of S.No.290 by defendants 1 to 4 and the proceedings in O.S.No.7 of 2009, etc., are necessary and essential to be probablised by the documents sought to be produced and in view of the failure of defendants 13 to 20, it became necessary for defendants 2 to 4 to produce and prove such documentary evidence. The defendants 2 to 4/the revision petitioners, therefore, desired the suit to be reopened as requested in I.A.No.1242 of 2010, the documents to be received as requested in I.A.No.1243 of 2010, D.W.1 to be recalled for marking the documents as requested in I.A.No.1244 of 2010 and to recall for the original File No.B6/962/1997 from the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records for comparison with Exs.B-12, B-13, B-15 and B-16 as prayed for in I.A.No.1245 of 2010 and the Memo was to transfer O.S.No.7 of 2009 from the I Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Mahabubnagar, to the trial Court. 3. The plaintiffs opposed the applications through a common counter affidavit contending that the oral evidence of both parties has been recorded during which all the documents relied on by them were marked and at the stage of arguments, the defendants, represented by their learned counsel, took several adjournments before coming up with the present requests. The endorsements in File No.B6/962/1997 were already marked and confronted to the witnesses who were cross-examined on that aspect. The present petitions are, hence, intended to drag on the matter and protract the litigation and, hence, they desired the requests to be negatived. 4. The trial Court, in the common order in question, noted that O.S.No.5 of 2005 and O.S.No.56 of 2007 were tried together in which sufficient opportunity was given to all the parties to produce their evidence before it was closed. Even the arguments on behalf of the plaintiffs were heard with the revision petitioners coming up with the present applications at the stage of arguments of the defendants. The trial Court further observed that Exs.B-12 to B-16 were already marked concerning the File proposed to be sent for and there was no reason to send for the original File. O.S.No.7 of 2009 was never attempted to be brought to the same trial Court through an appropriate application before the District Court and in view of the documents from the other suit on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Mahabubnagar, being of no relevance and as this suit can be disposed of on the strength of the pleadings and evidence already on record, the trial Court dismissed the petitions and rejected the Memo. 5. It should be noted that a civil revision petition filed along with these four civil revision petitions challenging the rejection of the Memo for transfer of the suit in O.S.No.7 of 2009, on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Mahabubnagar, to the trial Court was dismissed at the stage of admission as the trial Court could not have in law been competent to effect such a transfer. 6. Heard Sri P.V. Mahesh, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri K. Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 6 and 8 to 13/the plaintiffs (the 7th respondent, though one of the plaintiffs, is believed to be no more). 7. The point for consideration is whether the defendants 2 to 4 should have been given an opportunity to produce the documents covered by I.A.No.1243 of 2010 and to summon the file covered by I.A.No.1245 of 2010 and should have been permitted consequentially to adduce further evidence. 8. Insofar as the original File No.B6/962/1997 sought to be summoned from the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Collectorate, Mahabubnagar, is concerned, the affidavit in support of I.A.No.1245 of 2010 only states about the necessity to summon the file to inspect it and verify with reference to Exs.B-12, B-13, B-15 and B-16. Exs.B-12, B-13, B-15 and B-16 are authenticated copies of the relevant contents of the said File which were already admitted into evidence through the oral evidence on behalf of defendants 2 to 4 themselves and if there is any doubt concerning the said documents or their contents, it would have become necessary for the opposite side to summon the original File and the affidavit does not disclose the necessity for the original File being summoned by the defendants 2 to 4. In fact, it is the plea of the plaintiffs in the counter affidavit that Exs.B-15 and B-16 and the endorsements in the File were already confronted to the witnesses who were cross-examined on that aspect. The counter affidavit does not require the summoning of the file for any purpose and, therefore, the opinion of the trial Court about the absence of any necessity for summoning the original File again when the documents were already marked by the Court cannot be considered unreasonable or liable for interference in the restricted revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The dismissal of I.A.No.1245 of 2010, therefore, cannot be interfered with. 9. Coming to the production of the documents referred to in I.A.No.1243 of 2010, the affidavit in support of the application stated in detail the purpose for which different documents are sought to be produced and admitted into evidence. The attempt by defendants 2 to 4 to trace the original ownership and possession of the lands said to be involved in this litigation and the transactions which were claimed to have taken place concerning the said lands cannot be considered to be an irrelevant or extraneous exercise. The subject matter of O.S.No.7 of 2009 being connected with the subject matter of this suit is also not factually denied in the counter affidavit, the opposition by the plaintiffs for conceding the request being more due to the failure of defendants 2 to 4 to avail more than a reasonable opportunity given to them earlier to produce all their evidence and not because of any irrelevance of the documents sought to be produced along with I.A.No.1243 of 2010. 10. The impugned order shows that the trial in the old suit going on since 2008 with every opportunity to the parties at every stage to take all necessary steps in support of their version was the reason for the trial Court being not persuaded to accept the request of the defendants at the belated stage of arguments of the defendants. The failure of the defendants 2 to 4 to take steps in this regard definitely indicates lack of diligence, but rules of procedure being intended to advance the cause of substantial justice and not to punish the parties for their technical lapses, any inconvenience caused to the opposite side or the Court should have been ordered to be compensated by appropriate terms instead of shutting out any relevant evidence. The effort of the Court should always be to arrive at a decision on merits but not on technicalities. As the defendants were not diligent, they should be subjected to suitable terms, while permitting them to have the documents produced and admitted into evidence under the circumstances. The trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it in this regard solely on the ground of delay and default on the part of the defendants which alone cannot be valid grounds. 11. Therefore, I.A.Nos.1242, 1243 and 1244 of 2010 in O.S.No.5 of 2005, on the file of the I Additional District Judge’s Court, Mahabubnagar, will be allowed on deposit of costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) by the defendants 2 to 4 with the District Legal Services Authority, Mahabubnagar, on or before 14.10.2011; in default, the petitions shall stand dismissed. The impugned order/orders, dated 24.01.2011, in I.A.No.1245 of 2010 is confirmed and in I.A.Nos.1242, 1243 and 1244 of 2010 are set aside, accordingly, and the trial Court shall make every endeavour to dispose of the suit on merits in accordance with law after every reasonable opportunity to both parties to adduce their further oral or documentary evidence as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of communication of this order. C.R.P.No.1519 of 2011 is dismissed and C.R.P.Nos.1516, 1599 and 2191 of 2011 are allowed accordingly. No costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 15th September, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1516, 1519, 1599 and 2191 of 2011 Date: 15th September, 2011 KL