KADALI UMADEVI Vs. MUPPULURU MADHAVA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs before the trial Court filed this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the correctness of order dtd. 11/12/2017 of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gannavaram in I.A.No.525 of 2017 in O.S.No.160 of 2007. The respondents herein are the defendants before the learned trial Court.

(2.) An application praying the Court to receive the documents was declined by the learned trial Court necessitating this revision for plaintiffs. O.S.No.160 of 2007 is a suit filed by two plaintiffs as against nine defendants. The property in dispute is described as 30 links of wide road running from east to west, which separates the property of plaintiffs from that of the defendants. The suit is filed for declaration, mandatory injunction and consequential permanent injunction. The substance of the claim is that Plot Nos.88 and 89 totally admeasuring 763 square yards in Revenue Survey Nos.6/5 and 6/6 of Buddhavaram Village of Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District is owned and possessed under certain registered sale deeds by the plaintiffs. It is stated that on east and south there are plots claimed to have been owned by defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.2 to 4. For the plots of the plaintiffs, the access is on southern side. Since the plaintiffs are absentee landlords, the defendants encroached 30 links road and commenced construction of concrete basement and as a consequence, the free access to the property of the plaintiffs is obstructed. It is in those circumstances, the suit was laid. During the pendency of the suit, evidence commenced on plaintiffs' side and it was at that juncture, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.525 of 2017 in O.S.No.160 of 2007 under Order VII Rule 14 read with Sec. 151 C.P.C. to permit them to file a document namely residential house sanction proceedings and the plan granted for construction issued by 5th defendant-Gram Panchayat and those proceedings pertain to the year 2010. In support of that application, the husband of 2nd plaintiff swore an affidavit and stated that during the course of cross-examination, the defendants suggested that the suit schedule property does not exist at all and it is not there in the Panchayat records. Saying so, the affidavit narrates that it was in that context the need for filing this application to produce evidence that in Plot Nos.88 and 89, Panchayat granted permission for construction. By then Exs.A.1 to A.17 were marked and the petitioners intended to have this proposed document exhibited as Ex.A.18. The affidavit further narrates about appointment of an advocate commissioner and as to how it was executed in part and was not executed further and the alleged causes of failure in completion of advocate commissioner's work etc. With such averments, plaintiffs sought permission to file the document and prayed to mark it as Ex.A.18.

(3.) Respondent No.1 filed a counter. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 and 7 to 9 filed one common counter. Respondent No.6 filed another counter. Material contents of all these counters are same. In their counters, those respondents stated that the proposed document is not true and correct and such documents were not brought to the light till today and the proposed document does not disclose the existence of 30 links road on ground and it does not show about the alleged rights of the petitioners over the said road. The proposed proceedings dtd. 30/3/2010 contains a specific condition that the intended building was permitted to be constructed and completed within 36 months from the date of those proceedings and since that was not done, those proceedings have no legal sanctity and such document cannot be treated as evidence. It is then stated that only plaintiffs are entitled for filing a petition for documents and the petitioners is not competent to file the petition and the sworn affidavit does not indicate that the proposed document is in the custody of the petitioners. The husband of the 2nd petitioner/2nd plaintiff, being a third party to the suit, is not entitled to file the present petition. For these reasons, they sought for dismissal of the petition.