THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI
Reopening the evidence, Permission to file the petition listed documents, Recalling PW2 for further examination and Receiving additional chief affidavit of the said witness.-when the suit is posted for arguments, the plaintiff filed the afore-stated four interlocutory applications for the purpose of adducing further oral and documentary evidence after recalling PW2 –
the trial court dismissed the same – on the ground that the documents sought to be filed were obtained prior to the filing of I.A.No.150 of 2018, which was dismissed.
But, the trial Court did not advert to the aspect as to whether the documents and further evidence that is being sought to be adduced with reference to the said documents would be of any assistance to the Court to arrive at a just decision on the issues involved in the suit. –
A.P. High court held that there was no circumstances to show that the delay was deliberate and was on account of culpable negligence and mala fides on the part of the plaintiff. Admittedly the documents being sought to be filed are copies of public records viz., revenue records. They may have bearing on the aspects to be taken into consideration for determination of the real controversy and also the principal issues involved in the suit. If the applications of the plaintiff are allowed and an opportunity is given to place such proposed evidence on record, the entire oral and documentary evidence would be before the trial Court and may be of help to it to arrive at a just decision in the matter. Adverting to the aspect that there areinterpolations, erasions and over writings, in the copies of documents furnished to the plaintiff under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, when the plaintiff is not responsible for such things, on the said ground, the plaintiff cannot be denied an opportunity to file the documents as were supplied by the competent authority. Further, it is to be noted that the said aspects and the weight that may be attached to the evidence that is being sought to be adduced has to be considered by the trial Court at an appropriate stage and the said aspect of appreciation of evidence being sought to be adduced need not be gone into in these revisions as at this stage this Court is required to examine the aspect of delay and as to whether sufficient cause is shown for granting the reliefs.-
‘It is well settled principle that in case ‘sufficient cause’ isshown for filing the documents at the hearing of the suit and/or at the end of the trial, such cause shown should receive a liberal construction so as to advance the cause of substantial justice, more particularly when the documents sought to be filed, in the opinion of the Court, are relevant and may have bearing on the aspects to be taken into consideration for the determination of the real controversy and the principal issue/s involved in the matter/suit. And what constitutes a sufficient cause always depends up on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Hence, the applications need not be rejected merely on the ground of delay/long delay, but the test shall be whether sufficient cause is made out for the delay.’-
On the above analysis, this Court finds that the plaintiff made out valid and sufficient grounds to reopen the evidence, accord leave to file documents & additional affidavit of PW2 and recall PW2. However, to off set the loss that may be caused to the 1st defendant on account of the delay in the disposal of the suit, it is just and fair to impose terms while allowing the revisions.