HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1957 of 2014 DATE: 01.09.2014 Between:
Katanguru Satyanarayana Reddy & others.
… Petitioners And Vikasa Bharathi Vidya Niketan (VIBHAVINI) Educational Society, Warangal & others.
… Respondents This Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1957 of 2014 ORDER:
The petitioners herein are the respondents in So.O.P.No.1731 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal. They filed I.A.No.829 of 2014 therein under Order VIII Rule 1-A C.P.C. to receive in evidence a minutes book relating to the 1st respondent society. By order dated 25.04.2014, the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal, dismissed the I.A. Aggrieved thereby, they are before this court.
Parties shall be referred to as arrayed before the Court below. The sequence of events, as set out in the order under revision, manifests that the evidence of the petitioners in the O.P. was closed on 15.07.2011 and thereafter the respondents examined three witnesses. At that stage, the subject I.A. was filed by them to mark in evidence the minutes book relating to the 1st respondent society. No explanation whatsoever was put forth by the respondents in the O.P. to explain as to why they failed to produce the said document along with their counter or mention the same in the list of documents.
Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) C.P.C postulates that a document which ought to have been produced in the Court by the defendant, but was not so produced, should not be received in evidence without the leave of the Court. The leave of the Court would obviously be granted upon due satisfaction that the defendant in the suit was prevented for just reasons from producing the document earlier. In the event, this requirement is not fulfilled, as in the present case, there would be no basis for the Court to record its satisfaction so as to grant leave. Admittedly, the respondents in the O.P. did not put forth any excuse whatsoever to explain as to why they failed to produce the minutes book earlier. Further, the casualness with which the subject I.A. was filed was also demonstrated by the fact that persons who were not parties to the main O.P. were shown as respondents therein. This Court therefore finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.
The civil revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No costs.
SANJAY KUMAR, J.
Date: 01.09.2014 ES