IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO C.R.P.No.5297 of 2012 Between :
Smt. M. Safura Bee, W/o.Late M. Abdul Sattar, Muslim, Aged : 63 years, Occ : House wife; R/o.D.No.15/220, Guntakal, Anantapur District and another.
…Revision Petitioners/Petitioners/ Plaintiffs Vs.
S. Mansoor Basha, S/o.Late S. Masthan Basha, Muslim, Aged about : 26 years, Business, R/o.D.No.5/406, Pathikonda Road, Gooty, Anantapur District and another.
…Respondents/Respondents/ Defendants Counsel for the Revision Petitioners :Sri K. Maheswara Rao Counsel for the Respondents :Sri M. Venkatanarayana The Court made the following : [order follows] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO C.R.P.No.5297 of 2012 ORDER:
This Revision is filed challenging the order dt.05.09.2012 in IA.No.587 of 2011 in O.S.No.59 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gooty.
2. The petitioners are plaintiffs in the said suit.
3. They filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their share in the plaint schedule properties.
4. The respondents filed a written statement contesting the suit. Issues were framed and the suit was posted for trial.
5. The 1st respondent claimed that the petitioners had not included houses at Guntakal in the plaint schedule and the suit was bad for non-inclusion of other properties in the suit. This plea was raised in the written statement.
6. Since the petitioners were of the opinion that these properties at Guntakal belong to their mother late Imam Bee and according to 1st petitioner she bequeathed them to 1st petitioner under a Registered Will dt.04.10.1989, she filed I.A.No.587 of 2011 under Order VII Rule 14 CPC seeking permission of the court to receive the said registered Will dt.04.10.1989, property tax receipts, death certificate of his mother and the death certificate of his brother, pleading that on account of mistake and oversight she did not file them earlier.
7. The respondents filed a counter opposing that they are not relevant for the suit.
8. By order dt.05.09.2012, the trial court dismissed the said petition on the ground that they are not relevant to the case and therefore they need not be received in evidence.
9. Challenging the same, this Revision is filed.
10. The counsel for petitioners submits that at the stage of filing documents under Order VII Rule 14 CPC, the Court has only to see whether there is sufficient cause shown for not filing them earlier and that their relevancy cannot be gone into at that stage.
11. On the other hand, the counsel for respondents contended that the order of the trial court is correct and since the documents proposed to be filed by petitioners were not relevant, the trial court was right in dismissing the said IA.
12. I have noted the submissions of both sides.
13. Order VII Rule 14 Sub-rule (3) CPC states that a document which ought to be produced in court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.
14. The petitioners have admittedly invoked this provision of law. In the affidavit filed along with IA.No.587 of 2011 they contended that 1st respondent filed a written statement that certain houses at Guntakal were not included in the plaint schedule and the suit was therefore bad for non-inclusion of these properties in the plaint schedule; and the documents filed by petitioners such as registered Will dt.04.10.1989, property tax receipts, death certificates of petitioners’ mother and their brother, show that the properties at Guntakal which were referred to by 1st defendant were properties of their mother late Imam Bee and devolved on 1st petitioner under the said registered Will after the death of Imam Bee. Therefore, the petitioners felt compelled to file IA.No.587 of 2011 only after the written statement was filed by 1st respondent, taking the plea of exclusion of the houses at Guntakal in the plaint schedule. At the time of filing the suit, the petitioners probably felt that these documents were not necessary to be filed since the houses at Guntakal were not sought to be partitioned by them, and therefore, these documents were not filed at that time.
15. Since the necessity to file these documents arose only after 1st respondent filed a written statement questioning their non-inclusion by way of explaining why they were not included in the plaint schedule, in my opinion, the court below should have allowed IA.No.587 of 2011 and received them in evidence, since sufficient cause exists for not filing them earlier.
16. When the application IA.No.587 of 2011 is filed under Order VII Rule 14 CPC to receive the above documents, at that stage it is not open to the trial court to comment on the relevancy to the case of petitioners. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and IA.No.587 of 2011 is allowed.
17. The trial court shall proceed further by receiving the documents sought to be produced by petitioners, if necessary, by reopening the evidence of petitioners and giving opportunity to respondents to cross-examine petitioners in respect of these documents. Therefore, the Revision is allowed accordingly.
No costs.
18. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any in this Revision, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO Date : 15-07-2014 Ndr/*