LUKKA SRINIVASA RAO Vs. LUKKA SIVAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE civil revision petitions arise out of common suit. Hence, they are heard and being disposed of together. The respondent has filed OS No. 61 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Tenali for permanent injunction against the petitioner in respect of the suit schedule property. After the evidence was closed and the suit was coming up for arguments, the respondent has filed IA No. 148 of 2015 for reopening the evidence, IA No. 149 of 2015 for recalling PW 1 and IA No. 150 of 2015 for receiving the documents in evidence. The petitioner has strenuously opposed the said applications by stating that no reasons, worth acceptable, have been put forth by the respondent for reopening the evidence. However, the lower Court by common order, dated 20.6.2015, has allowed the said applications. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the defendant filed these civil revision petitions.

(2.) AT the hearing, Sri Chakkilam Venkateswarlu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has strenuously submitted that the respondent has failed to assign any reason whatsoever for filing the applications at a far too belated stage and that therefore, the lower Court has committed a serious jurisdictional error in allowing these applications. He has further submitted that under Order VII Rule 14(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff shall enter all the documents, upon which he relies, in a list and shall produce them in the Court when the plaint is presented and unless the plaintiff satisfies the Court that he could not file the documents earlier with convincing reasons, the discretion vested in Rule 14 thereof shall not be exercised by the Court.

(3.) AS regards the proposition of law viz., that Order VII Rule 14(1) C.P.C., enjoins upon the plaintiff to file all his documents alongwith the plaint and that unless he puts forth convincing reasons, the Court cannot allow him to file the documents at a later stage, the same is unexceptionable. Indeed, this Court has reiterated this legal position in both the judgments cited by learned Counsel, as referred to supra. However, whether a party has put forth sufficient reasons for filing the documents at a belated stage or not, depends upon the facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in that regard.