The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling on the scope of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), has clarified that courts cannot permit belated applications to reopen evidence or summon official witnesses merely to fill lacunae pointed out by the opposing party. The judgment underscores that inherent powers must be exercised judiciously, with bona fides, and only to meet the ends of justice - not to remedy procedural oversights after evidence closure.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute revolves around a civil suit, O.S. No. 54 of 2018, filed by the plaintiff (respondent herein), Kotha Venkata Naga Satyanarayana Murthy, seeking delivery of possession of two properties described as "A" and "B" schedules, along with past and future profits. The plaintiff claimed title to the properties based on two registered settlement deeds:
- Exhibit A2: Settlement deed dated 19.09.1980, executed by the plaintiff’s father, Viswanadham, in favour of the plaintiff for the "A" schedule property.
- Exhibit A3: Settlement deed dated 16.10.1981, executed by Viswanadham (representing his minor son, the defendant) in favour of the plaintiff for the "B" schedule property.
The plaintiff alleged that her name was updated in the Record of Rights (ROR) and Pattadar Pass Books, and she had been paying taxes. However, the defendant, Pachigolla Venkata Ratna Kumari (the plaintiff’s younger sister), allegedly stopped paying profits and attempted to force the plaintiff to sell the properties. The defendant denied the validity of the settlement deeds, contending they were fabricated and that she had been in uninterrupted possession since September 1980.
Key Facts
- 15.12.1957: Partition of properties among Viswanadham and his children.
- 20.02.1970: Registered partition deed dividing ancestral properties between Viswanadham and the defendant (then a minor).
- 19.09.1980: Registered settlement deed (Ex.A2) executed by Viswanadham in favour of the plaintiff for the "A" schedule property.
- 16.10.1981: Registered settlement deed (Ex.A3) executed by Viswanadham (representing the defendant) in favour of the plaintiff for the "B" schedule property.
- Post-1981: Plaintiff’s name updated in ROR; Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds issued.
- Pre-2018: Defendant allegedly stopped paying profits to the plaintiff.
- O.S. No. 54 of 2018: Suit filed by the plaintiff seeking delivery of possession and profits.
Procedural History
The litigation progressed through the following stages:
- Plaintiff’s Evidence: Closed on 19.02.2020. The plaintiff examined herself as PW1, along with PWs.2 and 3, and marked certified copies of the settlement deeds (Exs.A2 and A3) and Pattadar Pass Books/Title Deeds (Exs.A4 and A5).
- Defendant’s Evidence: Closed on 20.10.2022. The defendant examined himself as DW1, along with DWs.2 and 3.
- Arguments: Oral and written arguments submitted by the plaintiff on 13.09.2023 and by the defendant on 25.09.2023. The suit was posted for reply arguments on 04.10.2023.
- Interlocutory Applications (IAs): Filed by the plaintiff on 04.10.2023 (after arguments were completed):
- I.A. No. 529 of 2023: Under Section 151 CPC to reopen the suit.
- I.A. No. 530 of 2023: Under Order VI Rules 6 and 7 CPC to summon the Joint Registrar, Palakollu, to produce the original settlement deeds (Exs.A2 and A3).
- I.A. No. 531 of 2023: Under Order VI Rules 6 and 7 CPC to summon the Tahsildar, Achanta, to produce records relating to the Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds (Exs.A4 and A5).
The plaintiff pleaded that the attestors of the settlement deeds were either deceased or unable to recollect the attestation, and the certified copies were not the original xerox copies. The applications were filed "as a matter of caution" to disprove the defendant’s allegations of fabrication.
- 04.12.2023: Trial court allowed all three IAs.
- 22.01.2024: Defendant applied for certified copies of the trial court’s orders.
- 20.12.2023: Official witnesses (Junior Assistant of Sub-Registrar Office and Revenue Inspector) produced original records, which were marked as Exs.X1 to X7 on 09.01.2024.
- 25.01.2024: Civil Revision Petitions (CRP Nos. 150, 141, and 142 of 2024) filed by the defendant challenging the trial court’s orders.
- 02.02.2024: Interim stay granted in CRP No. 141 of 2024, extended periodically.
Relief Sought
The petitioner (defendant in the suit) sought:
- Setting aside the trial court’s orders dated 04.12.2023 allowing the IAs.
- Dismissal of the plaintiff’s applications as belated and an abuse of process.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the trial court’s orders allowing I.A. Nos. 529, 530, and 531 of 2023 under Section 151 CPC and Order VI Rules 6 and 7 CPC suffered from illegality warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the applications were filed 3 years and 7 months after the closure of the plaintiff’s evidence and appeared to be an attempt to fill lacunae in the plaintiff’s case.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner (Defendant)
- The applications were filed belatedly to fill lacunae pointed out by the defendant in written arguments.
- Such a course is impermissible under Section 151 CPC, as inherent powers cannot be used to remedy procedural oversights after evidence closure.
- The trial court failed to consider the delay or the bona fides of the plaintiff in filing the applications.
- The plaintiff had already exhibited certified copies of the documents, and summoning official witnesses at this stage was unnecessary and prejudicial.
For the Respondent (Plaintiff)
- No prejudice would be caused to the defendant by allowing the applications.
- The trial court exercised its discretion judiciously to meet the ends of justice.
- The applications were filed as a matter of caution to disprove the defendant’s allegations of fabrication.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court undertook a detailed examination of the scope of Section 151 CPC, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy ((2011) 11 SCC 275). The Court distilled the following principles:
"(a) Section 151 is not a substantive provision which creates or confers any power or jurisdiction on courts. It merely recognises the discretionary power inherent in every court as a necessary corollary for rendering justice in accordance with law, to do what is 'right' and undo what is 'wrong'**, that is, to do all things necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of its process.
(b) As the provisions of the Code are not exhaustive, Section 151 recognises and confirms that if the Code does not expressly or impliedly cover any particular procedural aspect, the inherent power can be used to deal with such situation or aspect, if the ends of justice warrant it. The breadth of such power is coextensive with the need to exercise such power on the facts and circumstances.
(c) A court has no power to do that which is prohibited by law or the Code, by purported exercise of its inherent powers. If the Code contains provisions dealing with a particular topic or aspect, and such provisions either expressly or by necessary implication exhaust the scope of the power of the court or the jurisdiction that may be exercised in relation to that matter, the inherent power cannot be invoked in order to cut across the powers conferred by the Code or in a manner inconsistent with such provisions. In other words, the court cannot make use of the special provisions of Section 151 of the Code, where the remedy or procedure is provided in the Code.
(d) The inherent powers of the court being complementary to the powers specifically conferred, a court is free to exercise them for the purposes mentioned in Section 151 of the Code when the matter is not covered by any specific provision in the Code and the exercise of those powers would not in any way be in conflict with what has been expressly provided in the Code or be against the intention of the legislature.
(e) While exercising the inherent power, the court will be doubly cautious, as there is no legislative guidance to deal with the procedural situation and the exercise of power depends upon the discretion and wisdom of the court, and in the facts and circumstances of the case. The absence of an express provision in the Code and the recognition and saving of the inherent power of a court, should not, however, be treated as a carte blanche to grant any relief.
(f) The power under Section 151 will have to be used with circumspection and care, only where it is absolutely necessary, when there is no provision in the Code governing the matter, when the bona fides of the applicant cannot be doubted, when such exercise is to meet the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court."
Applying these principles, the Court observed:
- The plaintiff’s evidence was closed on 19.02.2020, and the defendant’s evidence on 20.10.2022. Arguments were completed by 25.09.2023, and the suit was posted for reply arguments on 04.10.2023.
- The plaintiff filed the IAs after a delay of 3 years and 7 months from the closure of her evidence, pleading that they were filed "as a matter of caution" to disprove the defendant’s allegations.
- The trial court’s orders, spanning eight pages, largely reiterated the contents of the affidavits and counters but failed to address the delay or the bona fides of the plaintiff. The trial court’s reasoning was confined to a single paragraph:
"As per the entire contention of the petitioner to prove her case, it is necessary to summon both the witnesses to prove execution of settlement under Ex.A2 and A3 and issuance of passbook under Ex.A4 and A5 to come to fair conclusion of the case, hence all the petitions are allowed."
- The High Court held that the trial court failed to consider the precedents cited and recorded no finding on the plaintiff’s bona fides. Allowing the applications at this stage would effectively permit the plaintiff to fill lacunae pointed out by the defendant in written arguments - a course impermissible under Section 151 CPC.
The Court further relied on Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing Kota v. M/s. Shukla & Brother ((2010) 4 SCC 785), which held that courts must record reasons for their conclusions to subserve the justice delivery system.
The Verdict
The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petitions (CRP Nos. 150, 141, and 142 of 2024) and set aside the trial court’s orders dated 04.12.2023 in I.A. Nos. 529, 530, and 531 of 2023. The Court directed the trial court to expedite the disposal of O.S. No. 54 of 2018, preferably within two months from the receipt of the order. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Inherent Powers Cannot Be Used to Remedy Procedural Oversights
- Section 151 CPC is not a tool to fill lacunae in a party’s case after evidence closure. Courts must scrutinize the timeliness and bona fides of such applications.
- Belated applications, filed years after evidence closure, are liable to be dismissed unless the applicant demonstrates exceptional circumstances warranting reopening of the case.
Trial Courts Must Record Detailed Reasons
- The judgment reinforces that trial courts must record detailed reasons for their orders, particularly when allowing applications that impact the substantive rights of parties.
- A mechanical or cursory order, as in this case, may be set aside under Article 227 if it fails to address delay, bona fides, or legal precedents.
Strategic Considerations for Practitioners
- Diligence is Key: Parties must ensure all evidence is led before evidence closure. Filing applications at a belated stage to remedy deficiencies may be viewed as an abuse of process.
- Prejudice to Opposing Party: Courts will consider whether allowing belated applications would prejudice the opposing party, particularly if the other side has already closed its evidence.
- Article 227 as a Safeguard: The High Court’s power under Article 227 can be invoked to correct patent errors of law, jurisdictional excess, or violations of natural justice by subordinate courts.
