* The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
+ Civil Revision Petition Nos.1659, 1660 & 1661 of 2014
Dated 25.07.2014
% Between:
# M/s.GPR Housing Private Limited, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director G.Punna Rao.
…Petitioner And $ 1.C.Prithvi Raj Reddy and 4 others …Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.MSN.Prasad Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: Mr.Ranga Rao Nellutla Counsel for respondent No.5: Mr.Avancha H.Chakravarthi < Gist:
> Head Note
? Cases referred:
[1] 2013 (1) ALT 174
2 AIR 2013 Supreme Court 1849
The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition Nos.1659, 1660 & 1661 of 2014
Dated 25.07.2014
Between:
M/s.GPR Housing Private Limited, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director G.Punna Rao.
…Petitioner And 1.C.Prithvi Raj Reddy and 4 others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.MSN.Prasad Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: Mr.Ranga Rao Nellutla Counsel for respondent No.5: Mr.Avancha H.Chakravarthi The Court made the following:
Common Order:
The Common Order, dated 17-04-2014, passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, in IA.Nos.514, 515 and 516 of 2014 in OS.No.924 of 2006 is the subject matter of these three Civil Revision Petitions.
The petitioner- firm filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. Pending the suit, it filed IA.No.514 of 2004 for reopening the evidence of PW.1, IA.No.515 of 2004 for recalling PW.1 for further examination and IA.No.516 of 2014 for receiving additional evidence. These three applications having been dismissed, the petitioner filed these three Civil Revision Petitions against IA.Nos.514, 515 and 516 of 2014 respectively.
The brief facts leading to the filing of these Civil Revision Petitions are stated hereunder:
The petitioner/plaintiff entered into a series of agreement of sale with all or some of the defendants, who are respondents in these Civil Revision Petitions. While the respondents have executed some registered sale deeds, they refused to execute the same in respect of the suit agreement of sale. The suit agreement of sale was, admittedly, entered into by respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and they were not signed by respondent Nos.3 and 5. It is relevant to note that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the sons and respondent No.4 is the daughter of respondent No.5. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that all the respondents have agreed to sell the suit schedule property; that respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 alone have signed the agreement of sale as respondent Nos.3 and 5 were not available on the date of execution of the suit agreement of sale and; that respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 have agreed to take the responsibility of getting the said document signed by respondent Nos.3 and 5, which fact was also specifically mentioned in the agreement of sale itself. The petitioner also specifically pleaded that, having received the advance sale consideration of Rs.1,72,60,000/-, the respondents executed some sale deeds and failed to execute the same in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.41-29 guntas.
Respondent No.5 filed a separate written statement wherein she has inter alia stated that the suit schedule properties being ancestral properties, her children i.e., respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein have no right to enter into any transaction in respect of her share and that as she has not signed the suit agreement of sale, the question of specific performance thereof by her does not arise. Respondent No.5 has filed her evidence in lieu of chief examination as DW.3. She was cross- examined on 30-01-2014 by the Counsel for the petitioner. In her cross-examination, she has stated as under:
“ I am not aware of the transaction covered by Ex.A.1. ……….. It is not true to say that I have obtained Rs.25 lakhs through cheques and the same was encashed by me.”
On 19-03-2014, the petitioner filed the abovementioned IAs. In the affidavit filed in support of the said applications, it is specifically averred that during the cross-examination of DW.3, on 30-01- 2014, she has denied the receipt of Rs.25 lakhs from the petitioner through cheques drawn from two Banks viz., M/s.Devi Gayatri Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Kukatpalli Branch (formerly G P R Cooperative Urban Bank Limited) and I D B I Bank, Basheerbagh Branch. It is further averred that the petitioner has obtained Certificates and extracts of pass books of respondent No.3’s account, from both the aforesaid Banks, which clearly prove the payments and also the transactions made between the parties, and that those documents are very much essential to prove that respondent No.3 has received amount from the petitioner.
In Paragraph 8 of the impugned Order, the lower Court observed that it appears from the documents proposed to be filed by the petitioner that an amount of Rs.20 lakhs was paid to respondent No.5. The Court below, however, framed a question as to whether these documents are relevant to decide the issues framed by the Court. The lower Court has reasoned that respondent No.5 has not signed the agreement of sale though her name is mentioned as one of the executants and that therefore, the documents sought to be marked are not relevant to decide the issues framed by the Court. The Court below further reasoned that there is no specific pleading in the plaint that a sum of Rs.20 lakhs was paid to respondent No.5 and that in the absence of a specific plea in that regard, the evidence relating to the alleged payment of Rs.20 lakhs is not relevant. I am afraid, this reasoning of the lower Court is wholly unsound.
The main controversy in the suit is whether respondent No.5 is also bound by the agreement of sale though she is not a signatory thereto. Though a specific plea may not have been raised regarding payment of the money to respondent No.5, as noted herein before, it was specifically pleaded that the agreement was executed on behalf of all the respondents but respondent Nos.3 and 5 did not sign the same as they were not available on the date of its execution. The petitioner also pleaded that on the date of agreement of sale, he paid part sale consideration of Rs.25 lakhs to respondent No.5. Even if the petitioner has not made a specific averment as to which of the respondents has received the sum of Rs.25 lakhs, the same does not prevent him from adducing evidence to prove that one of the respondents has received the said sum. The lower Court has made a tangent approach in observing that since respondent No.5 is not a signatory to the agreement of sale, the evidence of receipt of amount by her has no relevance. By making this observation, the lower Court has failed to examine the real controversy between the parties.
It is trite that pleadings cannot be construed as a statute. Too much rigid and pedantic approach in analyzing the pleadings leads to manifest injustice. It may bear repetition to observe that the real issue in the suit is whether respondent No.5 has received part sale consideration though she is not a signatory to the agreement of sale. Indeed issue No.1 is whether agreement of sale, dated 06- 10-2000, signed by three vendors out of five is valid and enforceable under law. In my opinion, this issue comprehends the aspects such as whether respondent No.5, though not a signatory to the suit agreement of sale, is privy to the understanding between the parties and whether in pursuance thereof, she has received part sale consideration by way of cheques. This Court is, therefore, at a complete loss to understand the reasoning of the lower Court that the alleged receipt of amount by respondent No.5 has no relevance to the issues framed in the suit.
Another faulty reason, on which the lower Court has rejected the applications of the petitioner, is that since the suit is of the year 2006, the petitioner cannot be permitted to produce additional evidence at the belated stage after closure of the evidence. The lower Court has completely glossed over the pleading of the petitioner, raised in his affidavit filed in support of the three applications, that the necessity for it to produce the additional evidence had arisen on account of denial of receipt of money through cheques by DW.3, in her cross- examination on 30-01-2014. As a matter of fact, the receipts allegedly passed on by DW.3 evidencing this payment are marked as part of Ex.A.4. This shows that the petitioner was diligent in producing the required evidence to prove payments. However, as DW.3 has specifically denied receipt of any money, the necessity for the petitioner to adduce further evidence appeared to have arisen.
Mr.Ranga Rao Nellutla, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in C.Ram Mohan Reddy vs. Kusetty Seshamma and others[1]. While there can be no quarrel on the proposition of law laid down in the said judgment, the facts on which the said judgment was rendered are not identical to the facts of the present case. In that case, the party, who sought to file additional documents, was himself the custodian thereof whereas in the present case, the documents, which the petitioner proposed to file as additional evidence, were in the custody of two banks and they relate to the accounts of respondent No.5. Therefore, the said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. The learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 also placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s.Bagai Construction through its proprietor Lalit Bagai vs. M/s.Gupta
[2]
Building Material Store . Even the facts of the said case also reveal that the plaintiff therein sought to file certain bills as additional evidence at a belated stage even though he himself was the custodian thereof. The said judgment also has no application to the facts of the present case as the plaintiff therein neglected to file the documents sought to be filed as additional evidence at appropriate time despite the same being in his custody.
Order VII Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 enjoins upon the plaintiff to enter all documents, upon which he relies in a list, and produce them in the Court when the plaint is presented. However, Sub-Rule (3) thereof vests power in the Court to grant leave to file the documents at a later stage but such power has to be exercised only upon the party satisfying the Court that, for convincing reasons, those documents could not be filed earlier. There can be no hard and fast rule for the Court to exercise discretion while granting leave under Sub Rule (3) of Rule 14. The Courts must always exercise sound discretion while dealing with the applications for leave to file additional material. Mere delay by itself would not constitute the sole ground for rejecting the leave. If the facts and circumstances of the case justify non-filing of the documents at an earlier stage, the Court will not reject the application for leave only on the ground of delay. In the ultimate analysis, the endeavour of the Court must always be to decide the real controversy in issue. If the material sought to be produced has relevance on the issues involved in the suit and helps the Court to determine the issues properly and effectually, the Court must exercise its discretion in favour of allowing such evidence.
In the instant case, the material sought to be filed by the petitioner as additional evidence is very much relevant for deciding the real controversy involved in the suit. Therefore, the Court below has committed a serious jurisdictional error in dismissing the applications filed by the petitioner.
For the above-mentioned reasons, Common Order, dated 17-04-2014, in IA.Nos.514, 515 and 516 of 2014 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, is set aside and all the three IAs i.e., IA.Nos.514, 515 and 516 of 2014 are allowed.
The Civil Revision Petitions are, accordingly, allowed.
As a sequel, interim Order, dated 19-06-2014, in CRP.No.1659 of 2014, is vacated and miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand disposed of.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 25th July, 2014
Note:
LR copies (B/o) LUR
[1] 2013 (1) ALT 174
[2] AIR 2013 Supreme Court 1849