BILLA JAGAN MOHAN REDDY AND ANR. versus BILLA SANJEEVA REDDY AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 429 · Decided: 28-01-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

' " 
BILLA JAGAN MOHAN REDDY AND ANR. 
v. 
BILLA SANJEEVA REDDY AND ORS. 
JANUARY 28, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XIII Rule 1-0rder XLI Rule 
27-Production of public document:.--Not in the custody of party-Time taken 
in procuring certified copies-Delay in filint,-Application for condonation of 
delay-Held: to be normally allowed in the interest of justice. 
Certain lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and the 
compensation was determined therefor. Appellants claimed 1/4 share in 
A 
B 
c 
the compensation determined and the respondents objected. Collector 
made a reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. Appellants 
were the first party and Respondents were the second party in the said D 
reference proceedings, which is pending. 
The title of the appellants to claim compensation was based on the 
entries in record of rights, revenue records to show pre-existing title. The 
said documents were sought to be produced by an application for condona-
E 
tion of delay in the production of documents which were public documents 
and procuring certified copies of the same took time. The trial court 
dismissed the application. Revision application preferred before the High 
Court was also dismissed. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the orders of the Courts below, F 
this Court, 
HELD: 1.1. It is clear from a bare reading of Order XIII Rule 1 that 
the parties or their counsel shall be required to produce all the documen-
tary 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. G 
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 they party's possession or custody, it 
shall be filed by the party along with an application to condone the del~y in 
filing them. The explanation for delay is not as rigorous as one filed under H 
429 
430 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1994] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
s. S of the Limitation Act. These documents were not in the possession or 
custody of the appellants, but they have obtained certified copies from the 
revenue authorities and sought to be produced. [431-H; 432-A, BJ 
B 
' 
1.2. No doubt there is a delay in production of the said documents. 
But the trial court had stated that the application was filed ~t the stage of 
arguments, seeking to produce those documents and sought to rely upon 
the documents. It is settled law that, if the documents a~ found to be 
relevant to decide the real issue in the controversy, and when the Court 
felt that interest of justice required that the documents may be received, 
exercising the power under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. the appellate court 
C 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 be considered in deciding the issues which arose in the con-
D troversy. [432-B-D] 
1.3. The trial court was not justified in refusing to condone the delay 
______..., 
and to receive the documents. The delay in filing the documents is con-
doned. The trial Court is directed to receive the documents, give an 
opportunity to the parties to prove the documents and if necessary, oppor-
E tunity to .the respondent to rebut the same and then dispose of the 
reference according to law. [432-D, E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2254 of 
1994. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.7.1993 of the Andhta Pradesh 
G 
High Court in C.R.P. No. 2805 of 1992. 
D. Prakash Reddy and Mrs. Rani Chabra for the Appellants. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
1. 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 S.L.P. is complete. When the case 
H was called, no one appeared for them, nor did they app~ar in person. 
r
----
BILLA JAGAN v. BILLASANJEEVA 
431 
2. Lea-ve granted Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 
A 
3. The appellants are the first party in the reference proceeding

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.