LawSphereX

SRI AMBICA SUDERSHAN v. M/S.GOWRA LEASING AND FINACE LTD AND 2 OTHERS

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: SHAMEEM AKTHER

Judgment date:

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-06-08. SRI AMBICA SUDERSHAN v. M/S.GOWRA LEASING AND FINACE LTD AND 2 OTHERS. Read the judgment and...

Judgment text

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MOND{Y,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWo THoUSAND AND rwENn;''' PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER Petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India, aggrieved by dated 04-04'2018 the order in IA'No. :so or 2018 in os. rvo. ig+ or 2ot2,on the fite Additional Chief Judge, City of the I Civil Court, Secunderabad Between: sri Ambica sudershan, s/o Sri veera venkata Pothu Krishna Rao peria, Aged about 43 years, occ- Business,'R/o rtat rtroqgo, glock-Dii,'drinoavan J ' - -'l Apartments, Jubilee Hills, Road No 87, Hydeiabbd _ iOO OO+. ... pETrTroNER/ RESPONDENT NO 3/ D3 AND 1. M/s. Gowra Leasing And Finance Ltd, Having its office at -noio,-d. gumpet Fgd lcorp 501,Sth Floor, gowra Grand, 1-8-384 and 385, s. p. Road, Secund. erapad,- by its Authorized. lepresentative 1ep. c"um itecouery Officer Sri L. Vinod, S/o L. Venkatesham, aged about 59 years. 2 M/s rr nethra rnfra Ventures ,l.

il3},:j}l,',:1il:ll}::::)l::, r, ; Fioor, Amee_rpet, Hyderabad-SOO 016, Rep by its Managing Director, vvnr Narasimha Prasad Pasumarthy. 3. Mr. M. Narasimha Rao,, Flat No 401, Sri Durga Harmony, H. No. 6-3-5521L, Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad - 500 082. (respondent No 2 & 3 Not Necessary parties Vide C,T. ) ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IA NO: 1OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To grant interim stay of all further proceedings in OS. No. 79412012 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, pending disposal of the CRP Counsel for the PctitiOncr: SRI V. RAVICHANDRAN SENIOR COUNSAL APPEARING FOR SRI PARSA ANANTH NAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent: NO 1 SRI K K WAGHRAY The Couft made the following: ORDER AKTHER DT.

JUSTICE SHAMEEM THE HON'BLE ORDER: of the Article 227 Revision Petition, under This Civil No'3' filed by the petitioner/defendant of India, is constitution of passed in I'A'No'350 dated 04'04'2018' challenging the order, City by the I Additional Chief Judge, 2018 in o'S. No,t94 of 2ot2 CivilCourt,atSecunderabad,whereby,thesubjectlnterlocutory the Application filed by respondent No. llplaintiff under order VlI Rute 14(3) read with Section 151 of code of civil Procedure' 1908 (CPC) to permit the respondent No. Tlplaintiff to file letters dated cheque return memo dated 31. 03 ',2012 05. 10. 2011, 31. 07. 2072, was allowed and the certiflcate dated 26. 10. 2017, Counsel appearing 2. Heard Sri V. Ravichandran, learned Senior parsa for petitioner/ for Sri Anantha Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the defendant No. 3, Sri K. K,Waghrey, learned counsel respondent No. 1/plaintiff and perused the record. 3, Sri V. Ravichandran, learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant No.

3 would contend that though the letters dated 05. 10,20L1, 31. 01. 2012 and the cheque return memo dated 31. 03. 2072 existed much prior to filing of the subject suit, the respondent No. 1/plaintiff has filed those documents belatedly without assigning proper explanation. The Court below erroneously allowed the subject lnterlocutory Application and ultimately prayed to set aside the order under challenge and allow the Civil Revision Petition as prayeil, far. C'ltP No 2932 o1'20t8 4' on the other hand, Sri K. K. waghrey, rearned counser for the respondent No. 1/praintiff wourd contend that the proposed documents are necessary for proper and effective adjudication of the subject matter of the suit, which is filed for recovery of money. The Court below is justified in allowing the subject Interlocutory Application, There is no materiar iilegarity in the order under challenge and ultimately prayed to sustain the order under challenge and dismiss the Civil Revision petition.

5, In view of the above rival contentions, the point that arises for determination in this civil Revision petition is as follows: "Whether the impugned order, dated O4. O4,20lg, passed in LA. No. 3SO of 2Ot8 in O. S. No. t94 of 2072 by the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civit Court, at Secunderabad, is liabte to be set aside? ,, 6. PorNT: As seen from the material placed on record, the subject suit in o. s. No. 194 of 20t2 is filed by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs. 62,s6,581/-from the respondents 2 and 3 herein/defendants 1 and 2 and petitioner herein/defendant No. 3. It is the specific case of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff that towards discharge of liability of the defendant No,1, the defendant No. 3 being the guarantor, issued subject cheque bearing No. 377491 dated 10. 10. 2017 drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd. , Rajbhavan Road Branch, for Rs. 53,37,SOO/-to the plaintiff and on presentation of the said cheque, it was dishonoured. The respondent No.

1/plaintiff has filed the subject I. A. No. 350 of 2018 seeking permission to file the letters dated 05. 10. 2071, 31. 01. 20t2, cheque return memo dated 31. 03. 20t2 Dr. SA. J a ) CRP No. 2932 of 20i8 andthecertificatedated26'tO'2077'TheCourtbelowvide impugnedorderdated04,o4,20lB,allowedthesubjectI. A. No. 350 of 2018. The contention of the revision petitioner/defendant No'3 is that the documents in question were filed belatedly without assigning proper explanation and hence they cannot be received in evidence. 7. it is apt and appropriate to refer the decision in Lukka Srinivasa Rao @ Venkateshwarlu v' Lukka ShivaiahL, wherein it was held thus: ,'It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice, It is also said that procedural and technical hurdles shall not come in the way of the Court for doing substantial iustice.

where procedural violations cause serious preiudice to the adversary party, the courts need to view such violations of the adversary party seriously and uphold the obiection(s) to prevent causing of such preiudice to it, In contrast, if such procedural violations do not lead to such result, the Courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violations' Applying these settted legal principles to the present case, it is no doubt true that, as per the law that could be culled out from the precedents, the party who wants to produce the documents at a later stage of the suit proceedings, must satisfy the Court with convincing reasons that he was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the same earlier.

However, in cases where such explanation is not effectively put forth and if the Court is convinced that the documents which are sought to be produced are essential for proper and effectual adjudication of the dispute and production of such documents at a belated stage would not prejudice the adversary party, it must overlook the failure of the party in putting forth convincing reasons. " ' zo ro 1r) ALt' ( ltir No. 29. ll ol. l0Ig In the insta nt case, the reason assigned by the respondent No,l/plaintiff for filing the retters dated 05. 10. 2ort, 3t. 0t. 2072 and the cheque return memo dated 31. 03. 2012 beratedry is that the said letters and cheque return memo were mixed up with the other papers in the office of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff and they were traced out recently, So far as regarding the certificate dated 26. L0,2077 is concerned, it is stated that the said certificate was obtained recently regarding the dishonor of cheque bearing No,377491 on 31,03. 2012.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the above documents, which relate to the cheque bearing No. 377491 dated 10,10. 2011 drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd,, Rajbhavan Road Branch, are necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the subject matter of the suit, which is filed for recovery of money, Therefore, the Court below is justified in passing the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. B. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions, if dry, pending in this revision petition shall stand closed. sd/-K. sarLESHI Assrsrg[ RE$P9R COPY //rRUE I I SECTION OFFICER To, l. ThelAdditionalChiefJudge,CityCivilCo-u1t,-secunderabad pnnSA TnC6SWAR RAO Advocate IOPUC] 2. One CC to Snr. nrtfn"frrtH wAGHRAY Advocate 5. on. cCto SRI K K [oPUc] 4. Two. CD CoPies Ma^-- \ { \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:08l06l2O2O 1 H E S TA r4: A. o L o 2 I 4lJ02il20 \ * * T ORDER CRP. No.

2932 of 2018 DISMISSING THE CIWL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 5$J' t S_Cj5O i{0 -} t(tp*

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.