KRISHNA MOHAN RAO CH S Vs. N NAGABHUSHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three Civil Revision Petitions are interconnected and they are directed against three separate orders in different Interlocutory Applications in O.S.No.42 of 1988 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Eluru. Hence they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to these three Civil Revision Petitions are as under : The Revision Petitioners herein are plaintiffs in O.S.No.468 of 1987. The case is said to be at the stage of arguments as both sides have adduced oral and documentary evidence. At this stage, the petitioners herein came to know that P.W.2 is having certain documents in his possession and hence they filed I.A.No.1475 of 1996 under Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C. seeking permission to file the same by explaining the reasons for their failure to produce the same earlier. An affidavit of P.W.2 is filed in support of the petition. They also filed I.A.No.1476 of 1996 under Order 18 Rule 17-A to recall P.W.2 for the purpose of marking those documents and I.A.No.1477 of 1996 under Section 151 C.P.C. to re-open the case. No counters are filed by other side. The learned Munsif held that the matter is pending since 1988 and sufficient opportunity wasgiven to the petitioners and that these petitions are meant to drag on the matter and thus he dismissed all the petitions. Hence, these three Civil Revision Petitions are filed.

(3.) In C.R.P.No.2588 of 1996 the question is whether Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C. is attracted. Since the documents were not in the possession or custody of the parties or their pleaders, but they were in the custody of the third party i.e., P.W.2, Sri Srccramachandra Murthy contended that Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C. is not applicable. After hearing at length both the learned Counsel and going through the relevant provisions of law, I am of the view that no petition under Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C. is required in such a case. The best course would have been to serve a notice upon P.W.2, who was said to be in custody, to produce those documents and to recall him with the permission of the Court for proving those documen ts. One of them is a registered sale deed and another is a certified copy of the plaint in another suit and one more document is certified copy of order in I.A.No.1433 of 1989. The other documents are said to be original ledgers from 1945-1946 onwards. It is strenuously contended by Sri Simhadri, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners that they are all relevant and material documents and the Revision Petitioners will suffer irreparable loss if they are not permitted to be filed and received in evidence. The only objection raised by Sri Srecramachandra Murthy learned Counsel for the respondents is that Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C. is not at all attracted. Be that as it may.