IN THE
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT
HYDERABAD
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE
RAJA ELANGO
C.R.P.Nos.1170, 1176
and 1513 of 2012
DATE:12-06-2012
C.R.P.No.1170 OF 2012
BETWEEN
Singi Reddy Padma Reddy
…Petitioner
AND
Royal Educational Society,
Rep. by its Secretary/Chairman
A.Prashanth Kumar
…Respondent
C.R.P.No.1176 OF 2012
BETWEEN
Singi Reddy Padma Reddy
…Petitioner
AND
Royal Educational Society,
Rep. by its Secretary/Chairman
A.Prashanth Kumar
…Respondent
C.R.P.No.1513 OF 2012
BETWEEN
Singi Reddy Padma Reddy
…Petitioner
AND
Royal Educational Society,
Rep. by its Secretary/Chairman
A.Prashanth Kumar
…Respondent
THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
COMMON ORDER:
All
these revisions are arising out of common order and the parties are one and the
same. Therefore, they are heard together and being disposed of
by this common order.
By the
common impugned order dated 28.2.2012 III Additional District Judge (Fast Track
Court), R.R.District allowed I.A.Nos.167, 168, 169 and 170 of 2012 in O.S.No.1053
of 2008 filed by the plaintiff to reopen the case of plaintiff; to receive
certain documents; to summon the Sub-Registrar, Medchal to produce the copies
of the sale deeds mentioned thereunder; and to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of
marking the sale deed and letter dated 22.9.2005 respectively. C.R.P.No.1170
of 2012 is filed against the order in I.A.No.168 of 2012; C.R.P.No.1176 of 2012
is filed against the order in I.A.No.169 of 2012; and C.R.P.No.1513 of 2012 is
filed against the order in I.A.No.170 of 2012.
Heard
the arguments and perused the record more particularly the impugned order
passed by the Court below.
Admittedly,
the plaintiff-respondent herein laid the above suit for specific performance of
agreement of sale dated 11.11.2005 allegedly executed by the
defendant-petitioner herein. Trial
was commenced and the examination of P.W.1 was also over. At
this stage, since the petitioner herein disputed the fact that he is not the
signatory to the document and that he never used to sign in English, the
plaintiff-respondent herein filed the impugned I.As in order to establish that
the defendant-petitioner herein executed the documents and signed them in
English.
This
Court is of the view that in considering the procedural laws, there cannot be
any hard and fast rules. Every case depends upon its own facts and
circumstances. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that in the impugned order the Court below simply recorded
the decisions relied on by the petitioner but has not considered the same in
proper perspective.
As
seen from the impugned order, the Court below in the first limb of the order
observed the decisions placed by the petitioner herein and after recording the
same, it has given findings in para No.9, which runs as follows:
“9. In the
present case, the burden to prove that the defendant can sign in English is on
the plaintiff. To discharge the burden, the plaintiff confronted
certified copies of the documents said to have been executed by the defendant
where it is shown that the defendant has signed in English. But
the defendant denied the signatures in the certified copies of the documents
vide document Nos.1757 of 1985, 510 of 1983, 511 of 1983, 512 of 1983, 1202 of
1983, 6183 of 1983, 6184 of 1983, 6187 of 1983, 6188 of 1983, 6185 of 1983 and
6186 of 1983. Thus, the only remedy left to the petitioner/plaintiff is
to summon the Sub-Registrar where the documents are registered to prove that
the documents executed by the defendant. Since
there is a pleading that the defendant executed the agreement of sale, the
contentions raised by the respondent/defendant that that there is no pleading
and as such the plaintiff cannot be permitted to prove is untenable.”
From
the said paragraph, it is evident that the Court below considered the decisions
relied on by the plaintiff-respondent herein and furthermore the Court below
has recorded the reasoning for allowing the petitions. In the
same way, the Court below considered the decisions placed by the
defendant-petitioner herein also and in paragraph 11 it has recorded the
reasons for not relying on the decisions submitted by the petitioner herein,
which runs thus:
“11.
Thus, as the onus shifted to the plaintiff to prove that the defendant also
sign in English, he has to mark the document where the defendant purportedly to
have signed in English and no prejudice will be caused to the respondent by
allowing these petitions and the citation relied on by the learned counsel for
the defendant stated supra are not applicable to the facts of the case in view
of the latest judgment of the Apex Court in 2011 (2) Law Summary page 189
discussed supra.”
The
Court below rightly observed that when the petitioner herein disputed his
signatures on the documents in question, it is the duty of the
plaintiff-respondent herein to prove the same by way of adducing cogent
evidence. The same will not amount to fill up the lacunae and it is
only with an intent to establish the case of the plaintiff that too when the
burden is on them to prove their case.
As far
as the document dated 22.9.2005 is concerned, it is argued by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the plaintiff-respondent herein has not taken
any steps to file the same before the Court during the chief-examination or
cross-examination and hence, he cannot introduce a new document, which is not
pleaded in the plaint. This Court carefully considered the said submission. It is
true that the said document is not pleaded in the plaint, but at the same time,
the suit itself is filed on the basis of an agreement of sale executed by the
petitioner herein. Hence, the plaintiff-respondent herein filed the said
agreement of sale for the purpose of the suit. Since the petitioner herein
disputed the signatures on the document more particularly it is his contention
that he is not in the habit of signing in English and also he is not conversant
in English, it necessitated the plaintiff-respondent herein to produce the same
before the Court, which is prior to the execution of agreement of
sale. The said document is only corroborative in nature and if the
petitioner is aggrieved over the same, he can cross-examine on the said aspect
and also he can question the authenticity and genuineness of the said
document. Thus the impugned order passed by the Court below in
allowing the petitions under challenge with an intention to pass suitable
orders in the suit and for proper adjudication of the matter cannot be
interfered with.
For
the foregoing reasons, all the revisions fail and the same are accordingly
dismissed. No order as to costs.
_______________
RAJA
ELANGO, J.
JUNE 12, 2012
Tsr
No comments:
Post a Comment