P SAMBRAJYAM Vs. T SAMBASIVA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.R.P. is directed against the order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenali passed in O.S. No. 24/87 on 17-11-95. The petitioner before us is the original plaintiff. The question before us is whether the documents sought to be produced on record through D.W.2 could be allowed without the same having been referred to in the written statement and without bringing the same to the notice of the plaintiff before commencing the recording of oral evidence. The objection against production of documents taken on behalf of the plaintiff at the trial was over-ruled by the learned Subordinate Judge, and hence this revision.

(2.) The objection was taken by the plaintiff on the ground that the witness through whom the documents were sought to be produced were certified copies of sale deeds dated 16-3-83 and 20-10-89. The plaintiff took objection contending that the copies could not be received in evidence through a third party who was not a party to any of the aforesaid sale deeds, and secondly that without taking steps for production of originals, copies could not be received in evidence. The learned trial Judge observed in his impugned order that he did not agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that the copies could not be received in evidence. The learned Judge also did not find favour with the argument that the documents could not be allowed to be produced because the same did not directly relate to the suit transaction, and that they were only for the purpose of corroborative evidence. While allowing the production, the learned Judge observed that D.W.2 was one of the attestors to one of the sale deeds, and therefore, he was the proper person by whom documents could be produced and marked, and at the same time, the learned Judge made it clear that the sanctity of the evidence of D.W.2 and the documents produced by him was a matter of argument and could be considered by the Court at the stage of arguments in the main suit.

(3.) His true that the documents could not be allowed to be produced by the defendants for the first time at the instance of the defendant's witnesses without mentioning any thing about such document either in the written statement or at any stage prior to the examination of witnesses by the rival parties. If the documents are so allowed to be produced at that stage, the plaintiff would be deprived of the opportunity of referring to such documents either during his own deposition or during the deposition of the witnesses examined on his behalf. However, in my opinion, this hurdle could be overcome by granting permission to the learned Counsel for the plaintiff to recall the plaintiff or his witnesses if any clarification is required to be made by them in respect of such documents. The second submission made on behalf of the plaintiff before the trial Court that the production could not be allowed also because none of the documents related to the suit transactions, but were sought to be produced only for the purpose of corroborative evidence, cannot also be lightly brushed aside. However, the defendants would be amply justified in producing the documents if it could be seen that even remotely the documents in question were good enough to render corroborative evidence to the contentions raised by the defendants.