THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5045 OF 2012 DATED 18th JULY, 2014 Between:
Gundeti Bixapathi and others.
… Petitioners and Sambari Sudharshan and others.
… Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5045 OF 2012 O R D E R This civil revision petition was filed by the defendants in O.S.No.1402 of 2010 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. They call in question the order dated 20.01.2012 passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1779 of 2011 filed by them in the said suit under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14(i)(a) CPC to receive a particular document in evidence. By the said order, the trial Court dismissed the IA. Aggrieved thereby, they are before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
2. This Court, while ordering notice before admission in the matter, granted interim stay of further proceedings in the suit. The respondents/plaintiffs entered appearance through counsel and the matter is taken up for final disposal.
3. Perusal of the order under revision reflects that the trial Court was of the opinion that the document sought to be admitted in evidence was a post-suit document and did not find mention in the pleadings of the defendants. In this regard, it may be noted that the trial Court recorded the date of the institution of the suit as well as the date of the subject document incorrectly. The suit appears to have been instituted on 29-12-2010 which was wrongly shown as 29-12-2011 in the order while the subject document is dated 30-12-2010 and not 30-12-2011 as shown in the order. That apart, the finding of the trial Court that there is no whisper about the said document in the pleadings of the defendants is also incorrect.
Sri Y.Ramarao, learned counsel for the petitioners, drew the attention of this Court to sub-paragraphs L and M of paragraph 8 of the written statement filed by the first defendant wherein reference was made to the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Zaffargadh. Though the date of the proceedings is not mentioned, it is clear that the subject document is the document referred to in sub-paragraph M. That being so, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court erred in shutting out the subject document at the threshold on wholly erroneous grounds. The order under revision is accordingly set aside. The trial Court is directed to admit in evidence the subject document, if the same is otherwise permissible in accordance with law. It shall be open to the respondents/plaintiffs to raise all such objections as are available to them in law during this exercise.
The CRP is accordingly allowed. The interim stay granted on 15- 10-2012 is vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
SANJAY KUMAR, J 18th July, 2014 PGS