CPC | Court Not A Post-Office To Receive Documents: Andhra Pradesh HC Says Defendants Must Justify Failure To File Docs With Written Statement

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently held that the defendants should provide sufficient reasons if they fail to file documents with the written statement while filing an application in Order VIII Rule 1A (3) CPC. 

Justice BVLN Chakravarthi added that the provision mandates that documents ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, if not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.

“This Court in Ravi Satish (supra) and Voruganti Narayana Rao (supra) held that grant of leave is not for mere asking, nor is the Court a mere Post-Office to receive documents even in the absence of any reasons being furnished for failure to file the said documents along with the written statement.”

The petitioners, who were defendants before the trial court, sought permission under Order VIII Rule 1-A of the CPC to submit the listed documents. They claimed that these documents were not filed earlier with the written statement due to their requirement for loans and other benefits from banks and the government.

The Trial Court held that though the documents were in the defendants' possession when the written statement was filed, they were not submitted without providing reasons. 

Relying on Ravi Satish v. Edala Durga Prasad (2009) and Voruganti Narayana Rao v. Bodla Rammurthy (2011), the Trial Court held that though the defendants were in possession of the said documents on the date of filing of the written statement, they did not file the same without assigning any reasons in the written statement.

The defendants thus approached the High Court through a revision petition contending that the said documents were not filed along with a written statement as they were in the bank. However, before the Trial Court, they contended that documents were available to them but they did not file.

The petitioners' counsel argued that the documents were not filed initially because they were held by the bank. However, in the affidavit filed with the Trial Court, it was stated that the documents were needed for obtaining loans. Except for one document, no others were mentioned or referred to in the written statement. Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 1A of Order VIII CPC states that documents not produced in court by the defendant under this rule shall not be admitted as evidence without the court's permission. Sub-Rule 4 excludes documents produced for cross-examination of plaintiff's witnesses or for refreshing a witness's memory.

The Judge observed that though the documents were referred to at the time of cross-examination of the plaintiff, the defendants only filed the documents at a later stage of defendants’ evidence. Moreover, except one, other documents were neither referred to in the written statement nor mentioned in the list of documents filed along with the written statement.

Finding no material irregularity in the impugned order, the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed.

Cause Title: KOTTAKOTA LAKKAPPA v. B. LAKKAPPAGARI CHIKKAIAH

Click Here To Read/Download Order