HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

****

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2221 OF 2024

Between:

Pillela Kameswara Rao

… Petitioner

Versus

Atmakuru Vijaya Lakshmi

...Respondent

* * * * *

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 17.04.2025

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the Order?

Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Order may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the

fair copy of the Order?

Yes/No

JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

2

* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2221 OF 2024

% 17.04.2025

# Between:

Pillela Kameswara rao

…Petitioner

Versus

Atmakuru Vijaya Lakshmi

...Respondent

!

Counsel for the petitioner

:

Sri Sivaprasad Reddy

Venati

^

Counsel for the respondent

: Sri K.G.Thri Moorthy

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1) (2011) 6 ALT 299

2) (2017) 4 ALT 582

3) (2019) 5 Andh. LD 210

4) (2020) 2 ALT 364

This Court made the following:

3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2221 OF 2024

O R D E R:

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India, is preferred against the order, dated 13.08.2024, in

I.A.No.763 of 2024 in O.S.No.287 of 2020 on the file of the I

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, whereby the petition filed by the

petitioner/defendant under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to receive document viz. original

discharge receipt dated 08.03.2020 executed by the respondent/

plaintiff in favour of the petitioner/defendant, was dismissed.

2. Heard both sides and perused the record.

3. Respondent/plaintiff filed Original Suit No.287 of 2020

before the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore against the

petitioner/defendant, for recovery of money, basing on promissory

notes. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement admitting

execution of the suit promissory notes and stating inter alia that

originally, he borrowed the amounts from one Madhavi and executed

promissory notes in her favour, and on her request, the petitioner/

4

defendant executed the suit promissory notes in favour of the

respondent/plaintiff, and thereafter, the promissory notes executed in

her favour were torn by her. It is further contended in the written

statement that the petitioner/defendant discharged the entire amount

to respondent/plaintiff on 08.03.2020 by paying Rs.5,40,000/-, for

which the respondent/plaintiff executed a receipt therefor. A photo

copy of the said receipt is filed along with the written statement.

During trial of the suit, the petitioner/defendant filed the present

petition, along with his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief, seeking

permission to receive original of the said receipt dated 08.03.2020,

which was dismissed by the trial Court, vide the impugned order.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that there is factual foundation in the pleadings with regard

to the receipt which now sought to be received, and a photo copy of

the said document is also filed along with the written statement. He

submits that the said document is essential to establish the defence of

discharge taken by the petitioner/defendant, and since there is

pleading with regard to the said document and a photocopy was also

5

filed along with the written statement, he prays to receive original of

the said document.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/

plaintiff contended that no reasons were assigned in the petition for

non-production of the document at the earliest point of time, when the

said document is in the custody of the petitioner, and considering the

same, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition and there are no

grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the

respondent/plaintiff relied on the following decisions.

(i) In Voruganti Narayana Rao v. B.Rammurthy & others

1

,

wherein it is held thus: (paragraph 7)

“7. Rules 1-A and 1-A(3) of Order VIII CPC, were substituted by

Act 46 of 1999 with effect from 1.7.2002., The object with which

those Rules were amended was to curb the phenomenal delays in

the procedural aspects leading to procrastination of the

proceedings before the civil Court. The Parliament has thought it

fit to stipulate time limits for the parties to file their defence and

produce the documents along with the defence so that the cases

1

(2011) 6 ALT 299

6

can be disposed of without avoidable delays. This being the

avowed object with which the above noted provisions are

amended, Rule 1-A(3) of Order VIII CPC, which on a literal

interpretation appears to vest unlimited discretion with the Court,

requires to be interpreted so as to advance the intendment of the

legislation. The Court before which the defendant produced the

said documents after filing of the written statement, therefore,

needs to be circumspect in examining whether proper reasons are

assigned by the defendant for not producing the documents along

with the written statement. Unless the reasons assigned by the

defendant discloses sufficient cause for his failure to produce the

documents within the time stipulated in Rule 1-A of Order VIII

CPC, the Court shall not permit the defendant to file such

documents later. Undoubtedly, unduly liberal approach in this

regard would frustrate the purpose for which the provisions of the

Code of Civil Procedure are amended. This Court in Ravi Satish's

case (supra), held that grant of leave by the Court is not for the

mere asking nor is the Court a mere Post-Office to receive

documents even in the absence of any reasons furnished for

failure to file the said documents along with the written

statement.”

(ii) in Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road

Transport Corporation v. P.V.Surya Narayana,

2

wherein it is held thus:

(paragraph 17)

2

(2017) 4 ALT 582

7

“17. Coming to the judgments cited by the learned counsel for

the respondents in the case of Ravi Satish (supra 5), this Court

while dealing with the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) of the

Code of Civil Procedure, ruled that grant of leave under this

provision of law cannot be for a mere asking nor the Court is a

mere post-office to receive documents even in the absence of any

reasons being furnished for failure to file the said documents

along with the written statement. This Court further held that

having chosen not to give any reasons, it is not open to the

petitioners therein to contend that the Court below should have

received the documents, since the petitioner's right could be

adversely affected for failure on its part to receive the documents.

This Court also took note of the aspect that admissibility and proof

of documents are matters which ought not to be gone into at the

time of receipt of documents. This Court further held that the

leave sought for can only be granted on adequate reasons being

furnished justifying failure on the part of the applicant in not filing

the documents along with the written statement earlier. This

Court also repelled the contention that no prejudice would be

caused to the other side.”

(iii) in U.Venkatramma v. V.Ravinder Reddy

3

, wherein it is held

thus: (paragraph 10)

“10. Though learned counsel for the petitioners sought to

contend that grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioners,

if the documents are not received in evidence, learned counsel for

3

(2019) 5 Andh. LD 210

8

the petitioners did not dispute that most of these documents had

been filed in O.S.No.103 of 2015 which is being tried along with

the present suit. If so, the petitioners cannot say that the

documents were not traceable at the time when they filed Written

Statement in O.S.No.301 of 2012. It was incumbent on the part

of the petitioners to file documents on which they rely along with

the Written Statement filed by them. Grant of leave under Order

VIII Rule 1 (A) (3) CPC is not automatic and a party, who is

negligent in filing documents which are required to be filed along

with the plaint/Written Statement, cannot seek such indulgence

without showing sufficient cause.”

(iv) in Lakshmi v. Vitta Kristappa

4

, wherein it is held thus:

(paragraph 17)

“17. The court below having observed that there is no

reference about the proposed documents either in the pleadings

or in the evidence, and the ground on which the revision

petitioners are prevented from filing those documents at the

earliest point of time is not explained, rightly dismissed the

applications filed by them. The court below has not committed

any error, in my view, for rejecting the request made by the

revision petitions to grant leave for receiving the proposed

documents, for recall of PW 1 to confront him with those

documents and to reopen the case for the said purpose, etc.”

4

(2020) 2 ALT 364

9

7. Original Suit No.287 of 2020 was filed by the respondent/

plaintiff before the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore

against the petitioner/defendant, for recovery of money, basing on

promissory notes. The petitioner/defendant in his written statement

admitted execution of the suit promissory notes and stated that

originally, he borrowed the amounts from one Madhavi and executed

promissory notes in her favour, and on her request, the petitioner/

defendant executed the suit promissory notes in favour of the

respondent/plaintiff, and thereafter, the promissory notes executed in

her favour were torn by her. It is his further specific defence in the

written statement that the petitioner/defendant discharged the entire

amount to respondent/plaintiff on 08.03.2020 by paying Rs.5,40,000/,

for which the respondent/plaintiff executed a receipt therefor. The

petitioner/defendant filed a photo copy of the said receipt along with

the written statement. However, when the original of the said

receipt dated 08.03.2020 was sought to be received at the time of his

evidence, the trial Court dismissed the petition vide the impugned

order.

10

8. A perusal of the defence of petitioner/defendant in his

written statement shows that he had taken a specific plea in his

written statement that he repaid entire amount due to the respondent/

plaintiff under the suit promissory notes for which the respondent/

plaintiff issued a receipt dated 08.03.2020. He also filed a photocopy

of the said receipt dated 08.03.2020 along with the written statement.

Now, the original of the said document is sought to be received.

There is factual foundation in respect of the said document sought to

be received. A copy of the same is also filed along with the written

statement.

9. Order VIII Rule 1 CPC stipulates that the defendant shall,

within 30 days from the date of service of summons on him, present a

written statement of his defence. Proviso to the said Rule envisages

that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the

said period of 30 days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such

other day as may be specified by the Court, for the reasons to be

recorded in writing, but, which shall not be later than 90 days from the

date of service of summons. Order VIII Rule 1A CPC enjoins on the

defendant to produce in the Court any document in his possession

11

upon which he bases his defence or relies in support of his defense or

claim for set off or counter claim. Order VIII Rule 1A (3) CPC

postulates that a document which ought to be produced in the Court

by the defendant under this Rule, 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. Therefore, Rule 1A (3) of Order VIII CPC on

a literal interpretation, vests unlimited discretion with the Court, which

is required to be interpreted so as to advance the intendment of the

legislation.

10. In the case on hand, the document, for production of

which, leave is sought by the petitioner/defendant under Order VIII

Rule 1A (3) CPC, is not a new document without there being any

pleading with regard to the same in his written statement. There is

specific pleading with regard to the said document i.e. receipt dated

08.03.2020, stating that the respondent/plaintiff issued the said

receipt to him upon discharge of the debt under the suit promissory

notes. In fact, a photo copy of the said document was filed along with

the written statement. No doubt, in affidavit accompanying the

petition filed before the trial Court, the petitioner/ defendant did not

12

assign proper reason for not producing the original of the said

document at the inception i.e. at the time of filing written statement.

However, it is not a case of non-production of the document at the

earliest point of time or production of a document without there being

any pleading with reference to the same, since a photostat copy of the

said document was already filed along with the written statement and

there is pleading to that effect in the written statement. Further more,

the document is crucial and relevant for the purpose of establishing

the defence taken by the defendant in the written statement, and

hence, the same cannot be curtailed by rejecting to receive the said

document. In the facts and circumstances of the same, the same

would not, in the considered opinion of this Court, be a ground to

reject the request of the petitioner/defendant to receive the said

document. Therefore, there is sufficient reason for exercising the

discretion vested with the Court under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) CPC, in

favour of petitioner/ defendant for receipt of the said document.

However, the same is subject to admissibility and proof. The

decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent/

plaintiff are distinguishable on facts with the case on hand, and the

13

same would not render any assistance to the case of the respondent/

plaintiff, as, in the case on hand, there is factual foundation for the

document sought to be received and a photocopy of the said

document was also filed along with the written statement. Therefore,

this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court failed to exercise the

discretion vested in it and erred in rejecting to receive the said

document.

11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting

aside the order, dated 13.08.2024, in I.A.No.763 of 2024 in

O.S.No.287 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Nellore. Consequently, I.A.No.763 of 2024 stands allowed. There

shall be no order as to costs of the C.R.P.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

also stand closed.

______________________

K.SREENIVASA REDDY, J.

17.04.2025

DRK

14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2221 OF 2024

17.4.2025

DRK