SAYED MOHAMMED Vs. SAYED MOINUDDIN (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner and respondent Nos.1 to 69 filed O.S.No.157 of 1983 for partition and separate possession of vast extent of land. They also filed I.A.No.742 of 2017 to receive the certified copy of the proceedings dated 23.02.2012 issued by the Joint Collector (S), Ranga Reddy District, and to mark the same by condoning the delay. The trial Court by observing that the delay is not at all explained to receive the document, dismissed the said I.A. vide order dated 12.02.2018. Hence, this Revision.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on earlier occasion, when the afore-said suit was dismissed by the trial Court, the petitioner and other plaintiffs filed A.S.No.133 of 1994 and this Court vide judgment dated 27.07.2007 allowed the same remanding the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal after affording an opportunity to both the parties to amend the pleadings or adduce additional evidence, if they choose. In the light of the same, the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 to 69 filed the present I.A. to bring on record the proceedings dated 23.02.2012. He further submits that the trial Court dismissed the I.A. without considering the merits of the matter and the explanation given for the delay in bringing the said proceedings on record. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manohar Lal LAWS (SC) 2017 2 77 wherein, the Hon 'ble Supreme Court held that the amendment of the pleadings can be made at any stage and likewise, in terms of Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC., additional evidence can also be brought on record at any stage, even at the stage of trial, first appeal, and second appeal with the leave of the Court. He also placed reliance on the judgment dated 14.03.2019 passed by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3048 of 2019.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.97 to 101 submits that there are no bona fides on the part of the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 to 69 and filed the I.A. only to drag on the proceedings and further, no explanation is forthcoming for the delay in bringing the said proceedings on record, though the petitioner himself is a party to the same. He also submits that the suit is at the stage of arguments and allowing the I.A. at this point of time, would only further get the matter delayed and there being no merits in the present case, prays for dismissal of the Revision.