THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2102 OF 2014 DATED 5th AUGUST, 2014 Between:
St. Paul’s Christian Educational Society … Petitioner and Thoutireddy Gopal Reddy and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2102 OF 2014 O R D E R This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arises out of the order dated 08-07-2014 passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, in I.A. No.437 of 2014 in O.S. No.382 of 2008. The said I.A. was filed by the plaintiff society under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC read with Section 151 CPC to receive certain documents. By its order dated 08-07-2014, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff society is before this Court.
The suit, O.S. No.382 of 2008, was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 18-06-1990. Notably, by order dated 15- 04-2014, the trial Court, being of the opinion that some of the issues that fell for consideration had to be proved by the plaintiff while others had to be proved by the defendants, permitted the plaintiff society to lead rebuttal evidence.
Earlier, this Court had dealt with C.R.P. No.6150 of 2012 arising out of this suit and while disposing of the same by order dated 14-03- 2013, this Court directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit within six months from the date of communication of the order. Significantly, it was only after expiry of the time stipulated by this Court that the trial Court permitted the plaintiff society to lead rebuttal evidence under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC.
While so, the plaintiff society filed I.A. No.437 of 2014 in the suit seeking leave to mark in evidence certain new documents. Though reference was made in the affidavit filed in support of this I.A. to the permission granted by the trial Court to the plaintiff society to lead rebuttal evidence, the I.A. was not filed under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC but was filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 CPC. The trial Court considered the said I.A. only under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC and upon such consideration, the trial Court opined that the plaintiff society had failed to explain the delay in producing the documents that were sought to be adduced in evidence and had also failed to explain the reason for not filing them earlier. Holding so, the trial Court dismissed the I.A.
This Court, by order dated 18-07-2014, granted stay of further proceedings in the suit after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff society and the learned senior counsel appearing on caveat for the first respondent/first defendant. Though apprised of the time stipulation in C.R.P. No.6150 of 2012, this Court was of the opinion that as the trial Court had completely overlooked the provisions of Order 18 Rule 3 CPC in the context of its own order dated 15-04-2014, the matter required further examination. Appearance having been entered by the other named respondents in this C.R.P through learned counsel, the matter is amenable to final disposal at the admission stage.
Both sides pressed into service case law in support of their rival contentions. However, enquiry by this Court into these contentious issues may not be necessary. Once the trial Court itself opined that the issues framed for consideration in the suit warranted that the plaintiff society be permitted to lead rebuttal evidence under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC, it ought not to have thereafter ignored the said unchallenged order. Even though the subject I.A. was filed under the wrong provision of law, it is a settled legal proposition that such a lapse would not bar the Court from applying the correct provision of law and dealing with the matter accordingly. The trial Court lost sight of this aspect and merely considered the subject I.A. under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC. Applying the said provisions, it is no doubt true that the trial Court did not err in its exercise of discretionary jurisdiction thereunder.
However, the fact remains that the trial Court failed to examine the matter under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC in the context of its own order dated 15-04-2014, whereby the plaintiff society was permitted to lead rebuttal evidence in reply to the evidence produced by the defendants. As to whether the documents now sought to be adduced in evidence by the plaintiff society could be correlated to the evidence led by the defendants is an issue which the trial Court never examined. This Court is therefore of the opinion that the dismissal of the subject I.A., filed under a wrong provision of law, would not preclude the petitioner/plaintiff society from filing a proper application under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC and in the event such an application is filed, the trial Court would have to adjudicate the same on its own merits keeping in view the applicable legal provision and its own order dated 15-04-2014. This exercise shall be completed expeditiously in the event such an application is filed.
The CRP is disposed of accordingly. Interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, are also closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.
5th AUGUST, 2014
Svv
------------------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J