1

* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

+C.R.P.No.1945 OF 2024

% 16.10.2024

# Guggilapu Surya Narayana

……Petitioner

And:

$ Sureddy Kanaka Durga Venu

….Respondent.

!Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ch. Srinivas

^Counsel for the respondent : Nil

<Gist:

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1

(2020) 10 SCC 706

2

(2010) 8 SCC 329

2

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

* * * *

C.R.P.No.1945 OF 2024

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 16.10.2024

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgments?

Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals

Yes/No

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the

fair copy of the Judgment?

Yes/No

____________________

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

C.R.P.No.1945 OF 2024

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri Ch. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner

appearing through virtual mode.

2. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging

the order dated 01.08.2024, passed in O.S.No.334 of 2019 in the

I.A.No.375 of 2024, passed by the VII Additional Civil Judge

(Senior Division), Visakhapatnam dismissing the I.A.

3. The petitioner is the defendant and respondent is the

plaintiff in the suit.

4. The suit is filed by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of a

sum of Rs.2,71,700/- with subsequent interest @ 15% etc. based

on the promissory notes.

5. Henceforth, the parties shall be referred as in the suit.

6. The plaintiff inter alia, pleaded that the defendant took loan

from the plaintiff of Rs.10,00,000/- on 20.10.2016 for clearing

sundry debts by depositing the original title deeds of his house

and executed a demand promissory note agreeing to repay the

same with interest @ 18%. Subsequently, he again borrowed an

4

amount of Rs.3,50,000/- for other purposes and executed another

demand promissory note agreeing to repay with interest @ 15%.

The defendant’s daughter requested the plaintiff to give the

original title deeds of her father to enable them to sell away the

house to the third party. So the plaintiff handed over the original

deeds to the daughter. The defendant, however, failed to repay

the amount either principal or interest. Hence, the suit was filed.

7. The defendant filed written statement, inter alia, denying

the suit averments. He denied the borrowing of any amount,

deposit of the title deed and also the execution of the promissory

notes, which were said to be foisted and fabricated documents.

8. The defendant filed I.A.No.375 of 2024 under Order VIII

Rule 1-A(3) read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (for

short, “the CPC”) to grant leave to file the following documents to

receive the same to mark as exhibits on his behalf.

Sl.No. Date Description of the documents

1 22.04.2015 Certified copy of Registered mortgage

deed executed by the defendant in favour

of Chukkala Raghavendra Rao, bearing

document No.1974/4/2015

2 - Original of account statement of

defendant from 1

st

April, 2015 to 11

th

May,

2015, issued by SBI, Pendurthy Branch.

3 14.09.2017 Original registered lawyer’s notice issued

to the defendant

5

4 23.01.2018 Original Redemption deed document

No.334/2018

5 07.12.2018 Certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.182 of

2018

9. In the affidavit, in support of I.A.No.375 of 2024, it was

inter alia stated that in the year 2015, the daughter of the

defendant availed the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from Chukkala

Ragavendra Rao, by mortgaging the house of the defendant

through registered mortgage deed dated 22.04.2015. The

defendant handed over the original sale deed to the mortgagee.

On 14.09.2017, the mortgagee issued a legal notice to the

defendant to discharge the mortgage debt, which the defendant

got discharged through the registered redemption deed dated

23.01.2018. Later the daughter of the defendant took the original

title deed, without the knowledge of the defendant and filed the

suit for partition in O.S.No.182 of 2018 on the file of Civil Judge

(Junior Division), Bheemili against the defendant, his son and

brother, which was dismissed for default on 24.07.2019. The

defendant further submitted that, in view thereof, there was no

chance to deposit the title deed of the defendant with the plaintiff

on 20.10.2016. The defendant could not file the registered

6

documents at the time of filing of the written statement. It was

pleaded that those documents were misplaced at that time and

could not be traced. However, those documents were very much

necessary to prove the case of the defendant and to disprove the

case of the plaintiff.

10. To the aforesaid I.A., the plaintiff filed objection, inter alia,

denying the same and reiterating the plaint case. It was pleaded

that the defendant did not deposit his original title deed with the

mortgagee. Such a plea was afterthought. The deposit of the

original title deed was not mentioned either in the mortgage deed

nor in the redemption deed. The suit O.S.No.182 of 2018 was in

no way concerned to O.S.No.334 of 2019. Those documents

were not relevant. There was no such pleading in the written

statement of the defendant nor in the cross-examination of P.W.1

made by the defendant. There was no proper explanation for not

producing those documents along with written statement. The I.A

deserved dismissal.

11. The learned trial court framed the following point for

determination:-

“Whether the leave can be granted to the

petitioner/defendant for filing the so-called documents and

if so whether those documents can be received to file?”

7

12. The learned trial court dismissed I.A.No.375 of 2024 vide

order dated 01.08.2024.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by

rejection of leave the petitioner/defendant has been denied the

opportunity to defend. The rejection is on technical ground that,

in the written statement those documents were not mentioned for

defence. He submitted that those documents were necessary for

the proper adjudication of the case.

14. I have considered the aforesaid submission and perused

the material on record.

15. Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC reads as under:-

“1A. Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which

relief is claimed or relied upon by him.—(1) Where the

defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any

document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or

claim for set-off or counter-claim, he shall enter such document

in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement

is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the

document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written

statement. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession

or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in

whose possession or power it is. A document which ought to be

produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so

produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in

evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.] (4) Nothing in

8

this rule shall apply to documents— (a) produced for the cross-

examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or (b) handed over to a

witness merely to refresh his memory.”

16. A bare perusal of Rule (1-A) shows that where the

defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any

document in his possession or power in support of his defense or

claim for set off or counter claim, he shall enter such document in

a list and shall produce it in court, when the written statement is

presented by him and shall at the same time deliver the

documents and a copy thereof to be filed with the written

statement. It is clear that the sub section relates to the

documents upon which the defendant bases his defence or relies

upon, in support of his defence. So, the defence must be based

on documents, to be mentioned in the written statement. The

copy of those document is to be entered in the list and is to be

delivered or filed with the presentation of the written statement. If

any such document is not in possession or power of the

defendant, then he shall, wherever possible, mention, in whose

possession or power the document is. As per sub section (3), a

document which ought to be produced in court by the defendant

under the sub rule-(1A) but not so produced shall not be received

9

in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit without the

leave of the court.

17. In the present case, it is evident from the written statement,

that the defendant did not refer to these documents. His defence

was not based upon those documents nor were they relied upon

in support of the defence. Consequently, the leave could not be

granted under sub rule (3). Sub rule (3) relates to only those

documents which are mentioned in the written statement upon

which either the defence is pleaded or those documents are

relied in defence. Learned trial court has observed that in the

written statement there was no whisper about the so-called

documents. Though the defendant in his chief examination

mentioned about those documents, but any evidence beyond

pleading could not be seen.

18. The learned trial court did not believe the explanation that

those documents had been misplaced. It was observed that if it

was so, atleast in the written statement those should have been

mentioned, since the alleged transaction was prior to filing of the

suit. The defendant could not explain as to when the so-called

documents were traced; by what means and under what

circumstances, he tried to secure those documents. For the

10

reasons assigned, the trial court did not grant leave to file those

documents. Leave was rejected.

19. In Sugandhi (dead) by Legal Representatives and

another vs. P. Rajkumar represented by his Power Agent

Imam Oli

1

, upon which learned counsel for the petitioner placed

reliance, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the Order VIII Rule

1A(3) provides a second opportunity to the defendant to produce

the documents which ought to have been produced in the court

along with the written statement, with the leave of the court. The

discretion conferred upon the court to grant such leave is to be

exercised judiciously. While there is no straitjacket formula, this

leave can be granted by the court on a good cause being shown

by the defendant. The Hon’ble Apex Court, held that the

procedure is the handmade of justice. Procedural and technical

hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while

doing substantial justice. Therefore, the court should take a

lenient view when an application is made for production of the

documents under sub-rule (3). In the said case, the defendant

filed application assigning cogent reasons for not producing the

documents along with the written statement. They had stated that

1

(2020) 10 SCC 706

11

those documents were missing and were only traced at a later

stage. It could not be disputed in that case that the documents

were necessary for arriving at a just decision in the suit. The

Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the leave ought to have been

granted to produce those documents.

20. The principle of law as laid down in Sugandhi (supra), on

interpretation of Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC is that, if cogent reason

is assigned, the leave ought to be granted as the procedure in

C.P.C is the handmade of justice. In the present case, the cause

shown by the defendant was found as not sufficient or good

cause by the learned trial court. The main reason for not granting

the leave was that in the written statement, there was no such

mention or whisper about those documents. The defence of the

petitioner, was not based upon those documents nor those

documents were relied upon in support of the defense, which is

the pre-requisites under Order VIII Rule 1(A) C.P.C.

21. The document might not have been filed along with the

written statement but there should have been mention in the

written statement, either taking defence based on those

documents or those documents being relied upon in support of

the defense. Besides, those documents must also have been

12

shown to be necessary, for decision of the suit, for the leave

being granted. The previous proceedings of different suit

O.S.No.182 of 2018 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge at

Bhimili was within the knowledge of the defendant-petitioner but

was not pleaded in the written statement. If those documents

were necessary, the petitioner must have pleaded about

O.S.No.182 of 2018 and established about the necessity of those

documents in the present suit.

22. Applying the principle of law as laid down in Sugandhi

(supra), the petitioner failed to show a good cause as also that

the documents in question were necessary for decision in the

suit.

23. The reasons assigned by the learned trial court are

justifiable reasons. Refusal to grant leave does not suffer from

any infirmity or error of law of such a nature, so as to call for

interference in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India.

24. It is well settled in law that the jurisdiction under Article 227

of the Constitution of India is supervisory. It is not to be invoked

in a routine manner. The suit is of the year 2019. The I.A was

filed in the year 2024 for the subject documents, for which there

13

was no mention in the written statement of the

defendant/petitioner.

25. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil

2

, the

Hon’ble Apex Court held in para 58 as under:

“58. Hon'ble Apex Court on analysis of various decisions of the

Apex Court formulated the following principles on the exercise of

the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India in para-49, which is as under:

“49. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court,

the following principles on the exercise of High Court's

jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be

formulated:

(a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is

different from a petition under Article 227. The mode of

exercise of power by the High Court under these two

articles is also different.

(b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be

called a writ petition. The history of the conferment of

writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially different

from the history of conferment of the power of

superintendence on the High Courts under Article 227

and have been discussed above.

(c) High Courts cannot, at the drop of a hat, in exercise

of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the

Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or

courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power,

act as a court of appeal over the orders of the court or

tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative

statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that

would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this

power by the High Court.

(d) The parameters of interference by High Courts in

exercise of their power of superintendence have been

repeatedly laid down by this Court. In this regard the

High Court must be guided by the principles laid down

by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Waryam

2

(2010) 8 SCC 329

14

Singh [(1954) 1 SCC 51 : AIR 1954 SC 215] and the

principles in Waryam Singh [(1954) 1 SCC 51 : AIR

1954 SC 215] have been repeatedly followed by

subsequent Constitution Benches and various other

decisions of this Court.

(e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh [(1954) 1

SCC 51 : AIR 1954 SC 215], followed in subsequent

cases, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of

superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the

tribunals and courts subordinate to it, “within the

bounds of their authority”.

(f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such

tribunals and courts by exercising jurisdiction which is

vested in them and by not declining to exercise the

jurisdiction which is vested in them.

(g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High

Court can interfere in exercise of its power of

superintendence when there has been a patent

perversity in the orders of the tribunals and courts

subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and

manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of

natural justice have been flouted.

(h) In exercise of its power of superintendence High

Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law

or fact or just because another view than the one

taken by the tribunals or courts subordinate to it, is

a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has

to be very sparingly exercised.

(i) The High Court's power of superintendence under

Article 227 cannot be curtailed by any statute. It has

been declared a part of the basic structure of the

Constitution by the Constitution Bench of this Court

in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC

261 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 577] and therefore abridgment

by a constitutional amendment is also very doubtful.

(j) It may be true that a statutory amendment of a rather

cognate provision, like Section 115 of the Civil

Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Cod e

(Amendment) Act, 1999 does not and cannot cut down

the ambit of High Court's power under Article 227. At

the same time, it must be remembered that such

statutory amendment does not correspondingly expand

15

the High Court's jurisdiction of superintendence under

Article 227.

(k) The power is discretionary and has to be exercised

on equitable principle. In an appropriate case, the

power can be exercised suo motu.

(l) On a proper appreciation of the wide and unfettered

power of the High Court under Article 227, it transpires

that the main object of this article is to keep strict

administrative and judicial control by the High Court on

the administration of justice within its territory.

(m) The object of superintendence, both

administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency,

smooth and orderly functioning of the entire

machinery of justice in such a way as it does not

bring it into any disrepute. The power of

interference under this article is to be kept to the

minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does

not come to a halt and the fountain of justice

remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain

public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals

and courts subordinate to the High Court.

(n) This reserve and exceptional power of judicial

intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of

relief in individual cases but should be directed for

promotion of public confidence in the

administration of justice in the larger public interest

whereas Article 226 is meant for protection of

individual grievance. Therefore, the power under

Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is

subject to high degree of judicial discipline pointed

out above.

(o) An improper and a frequent exercise of this power

will be counterproductive and will divest this

extraordinary power of its strength and vitality.”

26. The civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to

costs.

16

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any

pending, shall also stand closed.

____________________

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

Dated:16.10.2024

Note:

L.R copy to be marked

B/o.Gk

17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

C.R.P.No.1945 OF 2024

Date:16.10.2024.

Gk.