IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3232 of 2003 Date: 05.09.2011 Between: Mohd Ahmed Moinuddin .....Petitioner AND P. Krishna Murthy ....Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3232 of 2003 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2002 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan, Nizamabad District, in A.S.No.13 of 1999, whereunder and whereby, the appellate court having allowed the application to receive the documents remanded the matter to trial court for fresh disposal. 2. It is not in dispute before this Court that the respondent herein filed an application in I.A.No.134 of 1998 in O.S.No.24 of 1996 under Order XIII Rule 1 C.P.C before the trial court to receive certain documents which are necessary for the disposal of the case. That petition was dismissed by a reasoned order dated 13.07.1998. The said order has become final. No revision has been filed. Thereafter, the Original Suit No.24 of 1996 was decreed on 12.04.1999. Challenging the said decree, an appeal in A.S.No.13 of 1999 was filed before the Senior Civil Judge, Bhodan, Nizamabad. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent herein filed an application in I.A.No.284 of 1999 in A.S.No.13 of 1999 under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C to receive the very same documents which were sought to be received in the suit and the same was allowed on 13.12.2002 and A.S. No.13 of 1999 was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the lower court with a direction to receive the document i.e., Receipt dated 23.11.1993 filed along with I.A.No.134 of 1998. Order XLI Rule 27 CPC provides to receive the documents at appellate stage, but it is not an automatic or routine unless the case of the respondent falls under in any one of the three circumstances provided in the rule. The appellate court has come to the conclusion that the documents now sought to be received as evidence are important document for the purpose of deciding the issue and point involved and therefore allowed the said petition. The appellate court has completely overlooked the aspect that for the purpose of self same relief, a petition filed under Order XIII Rule 1 CPC before the trial court to summon the very same documents, has dismissed and that order was become final. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied on a decision reported in Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy and another vs. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy and others[1] wherein it was held that: “It is clear from its bare reading that the parties or their counsel shall be required to produce all the documentary evidence in their possession or power which they intend to rely on to establish their right along with pleadings or before settlement of the issues. The court is enjoined under sub rule (2) to receive such documents provided they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in the prescribed form. If they are not in the accurate list thereof prepared in the prescribed form. If they are not in the party’s possession or custody, it shall be filed by the party along with an application to condone the delay in filing them. The explanation for delay is not as rigorous as one filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. These documents were not in the possession or custody of the appellants, but they have obtained certified copies from the Revenue Authorities and sought to be produced. It is undoubted that there is a delay in production of the said documents. But the trial court had stated that the application was filed at the stage of arguments, seeking to produce those documents and sought to rely upon the documents. It is settled law that, if the documents are found to be relevant to decide the real issue in the controversy, and when the court felt that interest of justice requires that the documents may be received, exercising the power under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC the appellate court would receive the documents and consider their effect thereof. When such is the position, when the documents are sought to be produced in the trial court, before the arguments are completed, normally they may be received; an opportunity given to prove them and rebuttal if any and their relevance and effect they may have, be considered in deciding the issues arising in the controversy. Under these circumstances, the trial court was not justified in refusing to condone the delay and to receive the documents. The High Court also committed the same error in not considering the effect in this behalf in the right perspective. The orders are accordingly set aside and the delay in filing the documents is condoned. The trial court is directed to receive the documents, give an opportunity to the parties to prove the documents and if necessary, opportunity to the respondent to rebut the same and then dispose of the reference according to law.” 4. Similarly he relied upon another decision reported in Sarada (Smt) and others vs. Manikkoth Kombra Rajenderan[2] wherein it was held: “Since it is the case of the appellants that T. Sekharan had sold the property as a collateral security and when the agreement subsequently entered into clearly mentioned receipt of Rs.35,000/- as consideration of the property, it would indicate that the parties had the sale Ex.A.1 only as a collateral security. Under these circumstances, the appellate court ought to have received the agreement dated 4.1.1983 as additional evidence and considered the effect thereof by either recording the evidence of the parties or calling a finding in this behalf from the trial court. Without receipt of the document and the evidence in consideration thereof, it would not be possible to render fair justice between the parties.” The above decisions have no application to the facts of the present case. Petition filed seeking to receive documents, was dismissed in the trial court and the said order has become final. But, such is not the case here. When an order dismissing the petition to receive the documents has become final, the petitioner cannot be permitted to file another application during the course of pendeny of the same proceedings or before the appellate court for the self same relief because the principles of resjudicata would equally applies to the orders passed at the interlocutory stage. The doctrine of resjudicata is based on the need and necessity of giving finality to judicial decisions. There is, no reason why the doctrine should not be made applicable to orders at different stages of the same trial or during the pendency of appeal. There can not be any dispute that appeal is continuation of suit. If the principle is not made applicable to interim or interlocutory orders, the very purpose of the doctrine would be defeated. It would be an abuse of the process of court to apply for the same relief by successive applications when such relief is already rejected by the Court. Therefore, the impugned order of remand is set aside and the appellate court is directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order in accordance with law. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU,J Date:05.09.2011. Gk. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3232 of 2003 Date: 05.09.2011 Gk. [1] (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 659 [2](1996)8 SCC 345