HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.569 of 2014 Date : 11.11.2014 Between
1. K.P.Mohanan (died as pr LRs)
2. Vinaja Mohanan w/o.late K.P.Mohanan, Age 58 years, Occu:Household,
3. Mayur Mohanan s/o.late K.P.Mohanan, Age 29 years, occu:Service,
4. Madhur Mohanan s/o.late K.P.Mohanan, Age 27 years, occu: Service, All are r/o.No.42, Vanamai Pallikannu, Kannur, Kerala.
and Abdulla Saleha Amer Shuja s/o.late Amer Shuja, Age about 52 years, occu:Business, R/o. 1-1-123, Khalilpura, Karimnagar, rep.by its GPA.
…. Petitioners/petitioners/ defendants …. Respondent/respondent/ plaintiff This Court made the following :
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.569 of 2014 ORDER :
The petitioners herein are the petitioners in I.A.No.1912 of 2013 and defendants in O.S.No.28 of 2010 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Karimnagar. The petitioners herein filed I.A.No.1912 of 2013 under Order XVI Rule VI of Code of Civil Procedure, praying to summon the stamp vendor Mohd. Ali Khan, to produce the stamp papers sale register maintained by him for the period covering 02.08.2006.
2. On 27.01.2014, the I.A. was dismissed holding that there is no need to summon the stamp vendor asking him to produce the register maintained by him for sale of non-judicial stamp papers. Aggrieved thereby, this revision is filed.
3. Heard Sri V. Ravinder Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. A.Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the respondent.
4. O.S.No.28 of 2010 is a suit for recovery of money with interest. The claim is based on the document dated 03.08.2006 alleged to have been written by late K.P.Mohanan.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent is a citizen of Abudhabi and late K.P.Mohanan (defendant No.1) was resident of State of Kerala. A non-judicial stamp paper of the value of Rupees 100 was alleged to have been purchased by late K.P.Mohanan in Hyderabad on 02.08.2006 and on the said stamp paper late Mohanan acknowledged receipt of an amount of Rupees 2,79,47,738 from the Plaintiff as business loan signed on 03.08.2006 and the said document is made as a basis for setting up a claim against the defendants. The petitioners denied existence of the document dated 03.08.2006. It is contended that late Mohanan was a resident of Kerala and that he did not travel to Hyderabad and purchase the document in Hyderabad on 02.08.2006, whereas the document describes as if, it was purchased by him.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that the document dated 03.08.2006 is fabricated and created and late Mohanan did not purchase the said document on 02.08.2006 as alleged. To establish the stand of the petitioners that late K.P.Mohanan did not purchase the document and to ascertain the fact as to who purchased the document, it is necessary to verify the register maintained by the stamp vendor regarding sale of non-judicial stamp papers for the relevant period.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that the specific averments made in the written statement and the pleadings were not considered by the learned Judge, and on the contrary placed reliance on reply given by K.P.Mohanan to the notice issued on behalf of the plaintiff. Learned Judge was confused between the contents of notices exchanged between the parties and the pleadings in the suit. The learned counsel pointed out specific pleading of the petitioners in Para Nos.4, 6 and 10 of written statement filed on behalf of defendants 2 to 4 and contended that what is recorded by the learned Judge, in para No.9 of the order is contrary to the specific averments of the petitioners. Learned counsel further pointed out that the trial Court erred in recording findings on merits. The evidentiary value of the document cannot be gone into at the stage of consideration of application filed under Order XVI Rule VI of CPC and therefore, the conclusions arrived at by the learned Judge, are contrary to the record and contrary to law and are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel further contended that calling for the document would only advance cause of justice and on the contrary if the document is not called for, it would amount to shutting out crucial evidence in support of the defendants. Unless the said document is called, great prejudice would be caused to the petitioners.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the claim of the petitioners and submitted that during the recording of evidence, the validity of the document was not disputed. After the closure of the evidence only, this point is pressed into service and it is not a genuine claim of the petitioners and that the petitioners are only interested in protracting the litigation. He also pointed out that as noticed by the trial Court in Para No.9 of the order, who purchased the stamp paper is not relevant since it is the specific case of the plaintiff that the suit document Ex.A.1 is in the own hand writing of late K.P.Mohanan which is dated 03.08.2006 and K.P.Mohanan also issued cheques in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the contents of the documents have not been disputed and thus it is immaterial as to who purchased the document.
9. While dealing with the plea of the petitioners to summon the witness to produce the record, Court below considered the contents of notice and reply by the parties prior to the institution of the suit and proceeded to hold based on those pleadings the financial dealings between late K.P.Mohanan and the plaintiff as proved. Court below also proceeded to hold that because it is the case of the plaintiff that the suit document (Ex.A1) is in the own handwriting of late K.P.Mohanan and late K.P.Mohanan issued cheques in favour of the plaintiff, the fact of purchase of stamp paper is not relevant.
10. In para 4 of the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants 2 to 4, there is clear denial of existence of the document dated 03.08.2006 and four promissory notes. It is specifically alleged that plaintiff created the document in collusion with others. The contents of the exhibit A1 are also denied including the handwriting of late K.P.Mohanan. In para-10 of written statement, there is a clear denial of the existence of agreement dated 03.08.2006.
11. It is thus seen that the Court below has not appreciated the rival stands of the parties in the suit. Reliance is placed on document dated 03.08.2006 (Ex.A1) alleged to have been written in the handwriting of late K.P.Mohanan and purchased by late K.P.Mohanan a day before the said agreement. The petitioners contention is that there was no occasion for late Mohanan to travel from Kerala to Hyderabad, purchase the document and execute the document on the next day. Petitioners, therefore, dispute the purchase of the document by late K.P.Mohanan and then executing the document. To establish the stand of the petitioners that no such document was purchased by late K.P.Mohanan, they require the production of the register maintained by the stamp vendor for the relevant period.
12. In the facts of this case, the petitioners’ prayer for production of the register maintained by the stamp vendor cannot be said as unreasonable or vexatious. In the facts of this case, it cannot be said that denial of production of the document would not hamper the defence of the petitioners. The production of the document would not prejudice the plaintiff. On the contrary it would advance the cause of justice.
13. The CRP is accordingly allowed. The order under revision is set aside. The I.A.No.1912 of 2013 in O.S.No.28 of 2010 on the file of Principal District Judge, Karimnagar is allowed. No order as to costs.
14. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this revision petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 11.11.2014 Rds/kkm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.569 of 2014 Date : 11.11.2014 rds/kkm