The marking of documents in an interlocutory application is more a ministerial Act done for the purposes of identifying the documents which are being considered by the Court for a prima facie case and does not amount to formal marking of documents as required under the provision of Civil Procedure Code or the Evidence Act.
The Appellate Court while considering the appeal could not have allowed the appeal merely on the ground that such documents were not marked. At best, it is a case for remand to the trial Court for marking the documents in the interlocutory application for purposes of identification.
AP HIGH COURT
| CRP/996/2020 | KASARAPU SANKARIAH |
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
C.R.P No.996 of 2020
ORDER:-
The petitioner/plaintiff had filed O.S.No.56 of 2015 in the
Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet, against the
respondent/defendant, for an injunction restraining the
respondent from interfering with his peaceful possession and
enjoyment of a passage said to be situated between the houses
of the petitioner and the respondent. The injunction was sought
on the basis of a claim of easementary right which is said to be
reflected in some documents.
The petitioner also filed I.A.No.186 of 2015, for a
temporary injunction pending suit and the same was allowed by
the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet by an
order dated 16.03.2020.
Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein had filed
C.M.A.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the Court of learned III
Additional District Judge, Rajampet. This appeal was allowed
by the learned III Additional District Judge, Rajampet by an
order dated 16.3.2020. Aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioner has now filed present Civil Revision Petition.
The contention of the petitioner is that the Appellate Court
allowed the appeal essentially on the ground that the trial Judge
while considering and disposing of the interim application, had
not marked any of the documents presented before the Court as
2
exhibits and in the absence of such marking, an order ought not
to have been given.
The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that
the learned Appellate Judge while holding that the trial Court
could not have gone into the documents presented by either
party, however, proceedings to consider the very same
documents and pass orders on merits also.
Sri N.Aswini Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Sri
Eerla Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent draws
my attention to paragraph 16 of the order of the Appellate
Court, which records that there are no structures in the land
and the question of easementary right of passage to a latrine
need to be demonstrated by the petitioner.
Heard both sides.
The marking of documents in an interlocutory application
is more a ministerial Act done for the purposes of identifying the
documents which are being considered by the Court for a
prima facie case and does not amount to formal marking of
documents as required under the provision of Civil Procedure
Code or the Evidence Act. The Appellate Court while
considering the appeal could not have allowed the appeal merely
on the ground that such documents were not marked. At best,
it is a case for remand to the trial Court for marking the
documents in the interlocutory application for purposes of
identification.
3
In these circumstances, it would be appropriate to allow
the Civil Revision Petition and set-aside the orders of both the
Appellate Court in C.M.A.No.1 of 2019 dated 16.03.2020 and
the trial Court in I.A.No.186 of 2015 in O.S.NO.56 of 2015,
dated 06.12.2018 and direct the trial Court to consider and
pass orders in I.A.No.186 of 2015 in O.S.No.56 of 2015 after
marking documents produced by either side, only for the
purpose of identification, in the interlocutory application and to
pass orders within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
Admittedly, there were no constructions in the disputed
site till March, 2020. In these circumstances, Status-quo
existing as on today shall be maintained till the trial Court
disposes of the application.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Civil
Revision Petition, shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Date : 27-08-2020
RJS
4
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
C.R.P No.996 of 2020
Date : 27-08-2020
RJS
