Suram Janardhan v. '1 . Suram Satyanarayana

2. Suram Srinivas, S/o Venkateshwarlu, Occ Labour, R/o H.no. 16-5-382, Near Ushodaya Public School, Shiva Nagar, Warangal

3. Suram Prasad, S/o late Venkateshwarlu, Occ Business, R/o H.No. '16-3-235, Shanti Nagar, Warangal

4. Suram Venu Prasad, S/o late Venkateshwarlu, Occ labour R/o H.No. 16-5- 1 39, Perukawada, Warangal ...RESPONOENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 1 5'1 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of copy of impugned order dated 27 -09-2024 passed in CRP No. 2478 of 2013 along with restoration petition filed in lA NO. ol 2024 in said Civii Revision Petition on the file of this Hon'ble Court. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 OF CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 27 -09-2024 passed in CRP No. 2478 of 2013 and restore the Civil Revision Petition on the file of this Hon'ble Court. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013 (CRPMP. NO: 3256 0F 201s) Petition under section 151 oF cpc praying that in th. rircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cor- r may be pleased ro grant the stay of all further proceedings in oS.No.411l2o1a ,ending on the file of the ll Addl. Junior civil Judge at warangal till pending r isposa-l of this civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. pODILA HARI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: NONE APPEARE l The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLD SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2478 OF 2013 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner defendant No.4 aggrieved by the order, dated 18.02.2013 passed in I.A.No.199 I of 2012 in O.S.No.488 of 2010 on the hle of learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge at Warangal.

2. The Brief facts of . the case are that respondent No.1/plaintifi filed a suit against the revision petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein seeking for partition and separate possession. Pending the suit, it appears that the petitioner-Defendant No.4 filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of C.P.C seeking to condone the delay in filing document dated 27.05 .2007 and the property tax receipt, dated 14.11.2012 on the ground that he could not file the same before the trial Court as the same was mispiaced in his house.

3. Respondent No. 1 / plainfiff filed counter denying the averments made in the petition and contended that the existence of the alleged documents rvere not mentioned in the 2 $rritten staten-lent al1d that no \.a11d and coger t reasons u,ere made for non filing of the alleged document; at the time of filing ol the u'ritten statemenr and there \\'r.r no justifiabie ground in granting ieave to the petitioner t r hle the said documents

4. The learned trial Court having taken in.r consideration the rival contentions of both the parties calr ( to conclusion that all the documents shall be filed by the p:r Lies along u,ith the pleadings and if at all the documents is r r t under porver and custody of the party, that party shall ha,n mentioned in the pleadings as to whereabouts of such docurr ents. Filing of the documents r.r.ithout pleadings is impermis sible and that such document rvas not received on the grour'( that it is at a belated stage ald the tax receipt in questic n is the post docr.rment rvhich is not having evidentiat !. value and dismissed the petition

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the revisr rn petitioner/ defendant No.4 filed the present Civil Rr:. ision petition contending that the said document, dated 2'.05.2007 was pleaded by respondent No.2 in the proceedi.'r;s of the suit 1@@z J.i / / 3 even though the document was referred by the plaintiff and a.lso admitted the fact thar the document, dated 27.05.2O07 which is nor. to be received by way of this petition was given by the plaintiff to the petitioner in man1, years back and he is in custody of the same but he could not filed by him because of the oversight which is misplacecl at his home at that time. Recentiy could trace out the said document and filed the present application and praved to allou. the Civil Revision Petition.

6. Though notice sent to respondents none appears and the name of the respondents also been published in the cause list. None appeared for the respondents.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner virtually and on perusal of the material on record, the only point that arises for consideration before the Court is "whether the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the petition and whether the petrtioner has made out any ground to interfere with the said findings?"

8. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner could not file the subject document within the time 4 for the reason that the sarne was misplaced ie:l I could not be traced out

9. Admittedll'. the present suit is filed fo - partltion and separate possession. The learned trial Court -rad dismissed the petition on the ground that the said docur Lents lr,ere not pleaded by the defendants in the written stalc ments hled by them. Whereas, the learned counsel for the pt t tioner pointed out that the said documents which the petitic ner intends to prove on record lvere already discussed and the same was relered by the plaintiffs in the pleadings at par rgraph No.3 of the plaint, which is also said to have been ad.'r itted by P.W.1 in his cross examination. Therefore, this ( l rurt is ol the opinion that the learned trial Judge ought to Laver taken the documents on record as it also goes into : re root of the dispute which arose between the parties and ras to be seen any ground of the pleadings or the docum: rtar1, evidence r.vhich is placed subject to the proof and relev'l rcy and taking the said document on record does not caus: an1' prejudice either of the parties and merely the said dorr rment was not reflected in the pleadings of the written stal.( ment the trial Court ought not to have refused to receive tht: same. For the 5 aforesaid reasons, I hoid that the ordcr passed by the Icarned trial Judge appears to be erroneous arrd the same is liable to be set aside. Hence, point is anslvered accordingly.

10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allor.r,ed arld the I.A.No.i991 of 2Ol2 is alloq.ed. The learned II Addirional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, shall receive the said document on record subject to proof and relevancy. There shall be no order as to costs. Misceilaneous petitions. if an-v, pending in this appeal shall stald closed. Sd/- NAYANI CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER i 1 To,

1. The ll Additional Junior Civil Judge at Warangal 2 One CC to SRI PODILA HARI PRASAD Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD CoPies GRiPSL HIGH COURT DATED:1410812025 ORDER CRP.No.2478 of 2013 ,/ //' 1/ c- '' --) t:. '1"-; '.. 1. i:7\ / I I - i:- '--''-:..-\ t,. ' ', ii [ 4 L:; 2025 ,..7 ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETI]ION If 14