Order 8 Rule 1-A (3) C.P.C., to condone the delay to receive the documents, 18 Rule 17 of C.P.C. to recall DW1-one more opportunity shall be given to the defendants to examine on their side, finally, in one adjournment enabling them to bring necessary documents on record before final disposal of the suit, in order to meet the ends of justice.-some other crucial documents as mentioned in the I.A., as stated above could not be brought on record during the course of trial as the said 4 documents were not available at that time, and it took some time for producing them. Meanwhile, the defendants’ evidence is closed. Unless the said documents are allowed to be brought on record, the petitioners herein would suffer an irreparable loss and hardship.

Order 8 Rule 1-A (3) C.P.C., to condone the delay to receive the documents, 18 Rule 17 of C.P.C. to recall DW1-one more opportunity shall be given to the defendants to examine on their side, finally, in one adjournment enabling them to bring necessary documents on record before final disposal of the suit, in order to meet the ends of justice.-some other crucial documents as mentioned in the I.A., as stated above could not be brought on record during the course of trial as the said 4 documents were not available at that time, and it took some time for producing them. Meanwhile, the defendants’ evidence is closed. Unless the said documents are allowed to be brought on record, the petitioners herein would suffer an irreparable loss and hardship.

AP HIGH COURT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

CIVIL REVISION PETITON Nos.1121, 1122, 1149 and 1156 of 2020

RAMTU RATNAMMA
Versus

SHAIK MASTHANI

COMMON ORDER :

 The C.R.P.No.1121 of 2020 arises against the Order in I.A.No.43

of 2020 in O.S.No.44 of 2016 on the file of the III Additional Junior

Civil Judge, Kadapa, dated 17.02.2020.

2. The petitioners herein are the petitioners in I.A. No.43 of 2020

in O.S.No.44 of 2016 and they are defendants No.1 and 2 in O.S.No.44

of 2016. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.44 of

2016.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the 2nd respondent is the

formal party and 1st Respondent is the contesting respondent before

this Court.

4. The suit is filed by the 1st respondent herein seeking permanent

injunction against the petitioners herein who are arrayed as

defendants No.1 and 2 before the trial Court with reference to the

plaint schedule property in which the written statement was filed and

the matter is being contested by the defendants. The trial was

conducted, in which PW1 and PW2 were examined on behalf of the

plaintiff and DW1 and DW2 were examined on behalf of the

defendants and the matter is at the stage of arguments. At that

juncture, the defendants 1 and 2 filed I.A.No.43 of 2020 in O.S.No.44

of 2016 before the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, under 

2

Section 151 C.P.C., to reopen the suit for the purpose of adducing

further evidence on their behalf in the interest of justice.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that

after closure of the defendants’ evidence, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.81

of 2017 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and the same

was allowed and the Commissioner executed the warrant and filed

the report. It is the case of the petitioners that during the course of

trial, they could not file the necessary documents, as they were not

in a position to file the same. After obtaining the same, they filed

Interlocutory applications seeking the relief to reopen the suit, to

recall the DW1 and to receive the additional documents which are

needed in the interest of justice for the purpose of deciding the suit.

Since there is a delay, after closure of the evidence for filing this

I.A., the trial Court having considered the material on record, the

averments in the I.A., dismissed the said I.A. No.43 of 2020. Against

which the present CRP No.1121 of 2020 is filed.

6. Similarly, the petitioners filed I.A.No.41 of 2020 in O.S.No.44

of 2016 before the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa under

Order 16 Rule 1 and 6 C.P.C., to summon the witnesses mentioned in

the petition and to produce the documents for the purpose of giving

evidence on behalf of the defendants. The same was considered by

the trial Court and on the ground of delay in approaching the Court

after the closure of the evidence, the I.A.No.41 of 2020 was

dismissed. Against which the present C.R.P. No.1122 of 2020 is filed. 

3

7. Similarly, the petitioners herein filed I.A.No.42 of 2020 on the

file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, under Order 8 Rule

1-A (3) C.P.C., to condone the delay to receive the documents which

are mentioned in the petition in the interest of justice. The trial

Court having considered the material on record dismissed the same on

the ground of delay in approaching the Court below, after closure of

the evidence. Against which, the present CRP No.1149 of 2020 arises.

8. Similarly, the petitioners herein filed I.A.No.44 of 2020 in

O.S.No.44 of 2016 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Kadapa, under Order 18 Rule 17 of C.P.C. to recall DW1 for further

evidence in the interest of justice. The trial Court having considered

the material on record, dismissed the said I.A., on 17.02.2020 on the

ground that no valid reasons are assigned, since they have

approached the Court below with this I.A., after closure of the

evidence. Against which the C.R.P.No.1156 of 2020 arises.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

counsel for the 1st respondent.

10. The petitioners contended that the specific averment is taken

in the written statement with regard to non-interference of the

defendants with respect to the plaint schedule property, as the suit is

for permanent injunction against the defendants. To support the

claim of the defendants, some of the documents were brought on

record, during the course of the defendants’ evidence, and some

other crucial documents as mentioned in the I.A., as stated above

could not be brought on record during the course of trial as the said 

4

documents were not available at that time, and it took some time for

producing them. Meanwhile, the defendants’ evidence is closed.

Unless the said documents are allowed to be brought on record, the

petitioners herein would suffer an irreparable loss and hardship.

11. On the contrary, the respondents counsel submits that no

cogent reasons are assigned before the trial Court, and as such, the

trial Court has dismissed those I.As., and the matter is now at the

stage of arguments.

12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, on perusal of the

Orders of the Court below, this Court comes to a conclusion that one

more opportunity shall be given to the defendants to examine on

their side, finally, in one adjournment enabling them to bring

necessary documents on record before final disposal of the suit, in

order to meet the ends of justice.

13. Accordingly, the CRP No.1121 of 2020, CRP No.1122 of 2020,

CRP No.1149 of 2020 and CRP No.1156 of 2020 are allowed by setting

aside the orders in I.A.No.43 of 2020, I.A.No.41 of 2020, I.A.No.42 of

2020 and I.A.No.44 of 2020 respectively in O.S.No.44 of 2016 on the

file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa by giving an

opportunity for the defendants to re-examine DW1 himself for the

purpose of marking the said documents sought to be marked which

are enclosed along with the I.A., before the trial Court by the next

date of adjournment as directed by the trial Court and the

defendants and the plaintiff shall cooperate with the trial Court in

conclusion of the evidence by the next adjournment and in default, 

5

the trial Court is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for closure of

the evidence on both the sides. The trial Court is directed to dispose

of the suit in O.S.No.44 of 2016 within a period of four (4) months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. But, with regard to

the summoning of the witnesses in I.A.No.41 of 2020 in O.S.No.44 of

2016, defendants shall cooperate and they shall be ready on the next

date fixed by the trial Court for adducing the evidence and marking

of the documents on their side.

14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. No

costs.

 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

the Civil Revision Petitions shall stand closed.

 ______________________

 JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN

Date: 01-12-2020

Yvk.

6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3322 of 2015

Dated: 24.11.2020 

7

Yvk