AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kiranmayee Mandava, J
The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 21.12.2018, in I.A. No.1351 of 2018 in O.S. No.767 of 2012 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram, in dismissing the application filed under Order XVI Rule 14 and Sec.157 of CPC., to issue witness summons to sales tax department to give evidence by production of record pertaining to the petitioner firm.
The revision petitioner contends that the petitioner is a firm and lessee of the respondents/plaintiffs. The respondents/plaintiffs are brothers and are land lords. The petitioner/defendant No.1 is the tenant of the suit schedule property. As per the plaint averments, the case of the respondents/plaintiffs is that, soon after the purchase of land by them, they got demolished the old structure existing on the property and erected a new building in the year 2002 and the same was given on lease to the 1st defendants firm on monthly rental of Rs.600/- p.m. When the 1st defendant became irregular in payment of rents, the plaintiffs have filed suit for eviction of the petitioners/defendants. Contending that the petitioners herein are their tenants right from 2002, have defaulted in payment of rest. Whereas in the suit, the contention of the defendants is that they have been in possession of the property right from 1984. In order to prove their possession of the said property, as a tenant, since from 1984, the petitioner herein, through the subject application in IA.No.1351 of 2018, sought to summon the Asst. Commercial Tax Officer, Danvaipeta, Rajamundry, to give evidence by production of the record pertaining to the petitioners firms registration as dealer under the provisions of APGST Act.
Respondents herein filed their counter affidavit in the I.A., stating that the petitioners, without filing any relevant documents into Court, to prove their contentions, in order to drag the proceeding and gather to evidence, have filed the application.
The learned trial Judge dismissed the application, observing that if the petitioner was really intending to examine the ACTO, he could have filed the present application, before framing of issues or immediately after framing of issues, whereas, he filed the application at the stage of trial when the suit was coming up for the defendants evidence, and further observed that as the petitioner has further failed to adduce any reasons as to how the ACTOs evidence would be relevant to his case. The learned trial Judge accordingly dismissed the application. Assailing the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
Heard the submissions of Sri P. Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioners contend that they are in possession of the property as tenants since 1984. To prove the same, it is contended that, production of the certificate issued by Commercial Tax Department before the Court, would be relevant to support their contention. He contends that as VAT and subsequently GST came into force, he had to surrender the APGST registration, which, would contain the present suit schedule address, to establish his case that he was doing business from the schedule premises even prior to 2002.
On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the petitioner had filed present application only to drag the proceedings and under
Or.16 Rule 14 of C.P.C., it is the discretion of the Court to summon any witness, and the petitioner did not even mention as to how the ACTOs production of record relating to the firm, case would improve their case, accordingly prayed for dismissal of the suit.
As noted from the pleadings, it is the case of the respondents/plaintiffs that the petitioners/defendants fell in arrears of rents right from 01-04-2010, and as the lease stood determined by the end of 31-03-2012, they sought for eviction of the petitioners/defendants. On the other hand the petitioners/defendants plead that they are in possession of the property since 1984, on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- and at the existing rent of Rs.864/- and not Rs.1,036/- .
Any document which is claimed, to be, never in possession of the petitioner alone can be justified to be directed to be produced before the Court, and not otherwise. In the facts of the case, the certificate of registration issued, under the provisions of the APGST, 1957, and the Rules, required to be displayed at the conspicuous place of business of the dealer. That being the statutory position, the document which was supposed to have been in the possession of the petitioner and if the same is not in his possession for any of the other reasons, the remedy available to him is to obtain a certified copy of the same under the provisions of the said enactment and produce the same before the Court.
The provisions of Order XVI, Rule 14 of the CPC, wherein, it is observed as under:
14. Court may of its own accord summon as witnesses strangers to suit.
Subject to the provisions of this Code as to attendance and appearance and to any law for the time being in force, where the Court at any time thinks it necessary to examine any person, including a party to the suit and not called as witness by a party to the suit, the Court may, of its own motion, cause such person to be summoned as a witness to give evidence, or to produce any document in his possession on a day to be appointed, and may examine him as a witness or require him to produce such document.
As noted from the provisions of Order XVI, Rule 14 of CPC, it is the Court, which, on its own accord, can examine any person by summoning him as a witness, to give evidence or produce document in his possession. In the light of the said provision of law, the application filed by the petitioners, seeking a direction by the Court to the concerned officer to appear before the Court and produce the record relating to his case is not maintainable, as the same is the discretion of Court on suo moto, and on its own accord, can summon a person under Order XVI Rule 14 of CPC., not on the basis of an application filed by the litigant before it.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.