AI Structured Summary
Facts, law points, precedents, ratio and the final ruling — distilled from the full judgment
AI Structured Summary
Facts, law points, precedents, ratio and the final ruling — distilled from the full judgment
Facts
The appellants are the first party in reference proceedings under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act concerning 33.09 gunthas of land in Chintagattu Village, Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh, acquired due to submersion of the Pochampadu Project. After compensation was determined, the appellants claimed a 1/4th share, which was objected to by the second party/respondents, and the Collector made a reference under Section 30, now pending decision. The appellants' claim to compensation was based on entries in record of rights and revenue records to show pre-existing title. They sought to prove this by filing copies of family holdings, Khasra Pahnin and Pahni Patrikas for 1954-55 and a certified copy of Pahani from M.R.O. Hasanparthy for Section Nos. 22A, 48, 55, 56, 57/C, 58/B, 58/C for 1959-60 to 1969-70, and other documents. The documents were sought to be produced by an application for condonation of delay in their production under Order 13, Rule (12) of the CPC. These documents are public documents. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the application. On revision, the High Court dismissed C.R.P. No. 2805/92 by order dated 5.7.1993. Hence this appeal by special leave. The Office Report and affidavit of dasti service proved that respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were served by usual mode and respondent Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7 refused to receive notice even by dasti, so service in the SLP was complete. When the case was called, no one appeared for them. Leave was granted.
Law Points
Whether the trial court was justified in refusing to condone the delay and receive the documents sought to be produced; whether the documents, being relevant to decide the real issue in the controversy, should be received in the interest of justice; whether the explanation for delay under Order XIII CPC is to be judged as rigorously as an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; and whether the High Court erred in not considering the effect in this behalf in the right perspective, including the power under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
Acts & Articles
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XIII Rule 1 (quoted), Order 13 Rule (12) as referred to in the application for condonation of delay, and Order 41 Rule 27; Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5; Land Acquisition Act — Section 30.
Judgments Referred
Not discussed in this judgment.
Obiter Dicta
The judgment observes that the explanation for delay in production of documents under Order XIII CPC is not as rigorous as one filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It also observes that where documents are found relevant to decide the real issue and the interests of justice require their reception, the appellate court may receive them under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi
The trial court ought to condone the delay in producing documents and receive them when they are sought to be produced before arguments are completed, provided they are relevant to decide the real issue in the controversy and the interests of justice require their reception. The explanation for delay under Order XIII CPC is not as rigorous as one under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. An opportunity must be given to prove the documents and, if necessary, to the respondent to rebut them, and their relevance and effect must be considered in deciding the issues. Refusal to condone the delay and receive such documents was not justified.
Final Ruling
The appeal is allowed. The orders of the trial court and the High Court are set aside. The delay in filing the documents is condoned. The Trial Court is directed to receive the documents, give an opportunity to the parties to prove the documents and, if necessary, an opportunity to the respondent to rebut the same, and then dispose of the reference according to law. No costs.
Plain-Language Gist
The appellants in a land compensation dispute wanted to produce old revenue records to prove their share, but the lower courts refused because the documents were filed late. The Supreme Court held that the delay should be condoned and the documents received, with a chance for both sides to prove or rebut them, so the reference can be decided on the merits. The appeal was allowed with no costs.
AI-generated summary — verify against the full judgment text before relying on it in practice.
Judgment
The Office Report and also the affidavit of dasti service would prove that respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 have been served by usual mode and respondent Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7 refused to receive notice even by dasti. Under these circumstances, the service in the SLP is complete. When the case was called, no one appeared for them, nor did they appear in person.
Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
The appellants are the first party in the reference proceedings u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act which relates to an extent of Acre 33.09 gunthas of land in Chintagattu Village, Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh, acquired due to submersion of Pochampadu Project. After determination of compensation, since the appellants claimed l/4th share therein and was objected to by the 2nd party/respondents, the Collector made a reference u/s 30 and it is now pending decision therein. The title of the appellants to claim compensation is based on the entries in the record of rights, revenue records to show pre-existing title. They sought to prove it by filing copies of family holdings, Khasra Pahnin and Pahni Patrikas for the year 1954-55 and Certified Copy of Pahani from M.R.O. Hasanparthy of Section Nos. 22A, 48, 55, 56, 57/C, 58/B, 58/C for the years 1959-60 to 1969-70 and other documents. The documents were sought to be produced by an application for condonation of delay in their production under Order 13, Rule (12) of C.P.C. These documents are public documents. The Sub-ordinate Judge dismissed the same. On revision, the High Court dismissed the C.R.P. No. 2805/92 by order dated 5.7.1993. Thus this appeal by special leave.
Order XIII Rule 1 provides thus:
Documentary evidence to be produced at or before settlement of issues -
(1) The parties or their pleaders shall produce, at or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence of every description in their possession or power, on which they intend to rely, and which has not already been filed in Court, and all documents which the Court has ordered to be produced.
(2) The Court shall receive the documents so produced;
Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in such form as the High Court directs.
It is clear from its bare reading that the parties or their counsel shall be required to produce all the documentary evidence in their possession or power which they intend to rely on to establish their right along with pleadings or before settlement of the issues. The Court is enjoined under Sub-rule (2) to receive such documents provided they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in the prescribed form. If they are not in the party's possession or custody, it shall be filed by the party along with an application to condone the delay in filing them. The explanation for delay is not as rigorous as one filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. These documents were not in the possession or custody of the appellant, but they have obtained certified copies from the revenue authorities and sought to be produced. It is undoubted that there is a delay in production of the said documents. But the trial court had stated that the application was filed at the stage of arguments, seeking to produce those documents and sought to rely upon the documents. It is settled law that, if the documents are found to be relevant to decide the real issue in the controversy and when the Court felt that interest of justice requires that the documents may be received, exercising the power under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. the appellate court would receive the documents and consider their effect thereof. When such is the position, when the documents are sought to be produced in the trial court, before the arguments are completed, normally they may be received; an opportunity given to prove them and rebuttal if any and their relevance and effect may have, be considered in deciding the issues arose in the controversy. Under these circumstances, the trial court was not justified in refusing to condone the delay and to receive the documents. The High Court also committed the same error in not considering the effect in this behalf in the right perspective. The orders are accordingly set aside and the delay in filing the documents is condoned. The Trial Court is directed to receive the documents, give an opportunity to the parties to prove the documents and if necessary, opportunity to the respondent to rebut the same and then dispose of the reference according to law.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.