Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy and Anr. v. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy and Ors.

Judgment

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2254 of 1994. From the Judgment and Order dated 5.7.1993 of the Andhta Pradesh High Court in C.R.P. No. 2805 of 1992. D. Prakash Reddy and Mrs. Rani Chabra for the Appellants. The following Order of the Court was delivered:

1The Office Report and also the affidavit of dasti service would prove that respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 have been served by usual mode and respondent Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7 refused to receive notice even by dasti. Under these circumstances the service in the S.L.P. is complete. When the case was called, no one appeared for them, nor did they app~ar in person. r BILLA JAGAN v. BILLASANJEEVA

2Lea-ve granted Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

3The appellants are the first party in the reference proceedings under s. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act which relates to an extent of Acre 33.09 gunthas of land in Chintagattu village, Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh, acquired due to submersion of Pochampadu Project. After determination of compensation, since the appellants claimed 1/4th share therein B and was objected to by the 2nd party/respondents, the Collector made a reference under s. 30 and it is now pending a decision therein. The title of the appellants to claim compensation is based on the entries in the record of rights, revenue records to show pre-existing title. They sought to prove it by filing copies of family holdings, khasra Pahnin and Pahni Patrikas for C the year 1954-55 and Certified Copy of Pahani from M.R.O. Hasanparthy of S. Nos. 22A, 48, 55, 56, 57/C, 58/B, 58/C for the year 1959-60 to 1969-70 and other documents.

The documents were sought to be produced by an application for condonation of delay in their production under Order 13, Rule (12) of C.P.C. These documents are public documents. The sub-ordinate Judge dismissed the same. On revision, the High Court dismissed D the C.R.P. No. 2805/92 by order dated 5.7.1993. Thus this appeal by special leave. Order XIII Rule 1 provides thus: "1. Documentary evidence to be produced at or before settlement E of issues - (1) The parties or their pleaders shall produce, at or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence of every description in their possession or power, on which they intend to rely, and F which has not already been filed in Court, and all documents which the Court has ordered to be produced. (2) The Court shall rec~ive the documents so produced; Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof G prepared in such form as the High Court directs."

It is clear from its bare reading that the parties or their cnunsel shall be required to produce all the documentary evidence in their possession or power which they intend to rely on to establish their right along with pleadings or before settlement of the issues. The Court is enjoined under H i sub-Rule (2) to receive such documents provided they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepart!d in the prescribed form. If tlley are not in the party's possession or custody, it shall be filed by the party along with an application to condone the delay in the filing them. The explanation for delay is not as rigorous as one filed under s. 5 of the Limitation Act. These documents were not in the possession or custody of the appellants, put they have obtained certified copies from the revenue authorities and sought to be produced. It is undoubted that there is a delay in production of the said documents.

But the trial court had stated that the application was filed at the stage of arguments, seeking to produce those documents kmd sought to , rely upon the documents. It is settled law that, if the documqnts are found to be relevant to decide the real issue in the controversy. And when the Court felt that interest of justice requires that the documents may be received, exercising the power under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P,.C. the appellate court would receive the documents and consider their effect thereof. When such is the position, when the documents are sought to be produced in the trial court, before the arguments are completed, nonµally they may be received; an opportunity given to prove them and rebuttal if any their relevance and effect may have, be considered in deciding the issues arose in the controversy. Under these circumstances, the trial court was not justified in refusing to condone the delay and to receive the documents.

The High Court also committed the same error in not cpnsidering the effect in this behalf in the right perspective. The orders are accordingly set aside and the delay in filing the documents is condoned. The Trial Court is directed to receive the documents, give an opportunity t<:> the parties to prove the documents and if necessary, opportunity to the' respondent to rebut the same and then dispose of the.reference according to law. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. G.N. Appeal allowed.