The High Court · 2025

1. L. Srinivasulu Reddy, S/o. Late L.V. Krishna Reddy, aged about 57 years, Occ Business, Rio. Villa No.11, Free Zone, Villa Greens, Gandipet, Hyderabad 500075

2. Union Bank of lndia,, Rep. by its Br. Manager, lVladhapur Br., Plot No.10, 76, Sai Nagar, Mandapur, Hyderabad.

3. K. Santosh Reddy,, S/o. Sankara Reddy, aged about 40 years, Occ Business, Rio. Flat No.104, Challa Pride, Czech Colony, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad Respondent No 2 and Respondent No 3 not necessary parties in this CRP RespondenUPlaintiff lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S. No.148 of 2021 on the file of the Vl Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at Kukatpally pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition. $i Counsel for the Petitione(s):SRl. c M MOHIUDDIN Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared The Court made the follcwing: ORDER . l I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition No.l59 of 2025 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition under Article 221 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the docket order dated

06.12.2024 passed in I.A.No. 1 125 of 2024 in O.S.No. 1 48 of 2021 by the leamed VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally

2. I'Ieard Mr.G.M.Mohiuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner Perused the material available on record

3. The petitioner in the instanl case is the delendant No.l and the respondent No.l is the plaintiffbefore the trial court. The plaintilfhad filed a suit for recovery of money pursuant to alleged mortgage deed executed between the plaintiff and the defendant No.l. The suit has reached the stage oftrial and the chiefaffidavit has already been filed by the plaintiff and the matter stands posted for cross examination of the said witnesses. It is at this stage that the I.A.No.l 125 of 2024 under Order XXVI Rute 10A of Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act was filed seeking for appointmen! of an Advocate Commissioner for sending Ex-A2 to the 2 ).\ Govemment Mint at Nashik for verihcation and authenticity of non-judicial s-amp paper on which the purpoted Ex-A2 is said to have been executed.

4. LJpon p:rusal of recoid would go to show that the suit primarily is a suit for rt:covery of money. The suit is filed on the condition of the plaintiff rhat the defendant No.1 obtain certain hand loan from the plaintiff towards securitl, for the return of the same they have executed a gift deed dated 20.12.20il. when there was a default on the parl of thc defendant No. 1 in retuming the hand loan, the suit had been filed ard the suit has now reached the stage of trial. At this stage, the said i.A. has been filed seeking ror examination of lhe veracity of the document. by which the gilt deed is said to be executed. The leamed trial courl while deciding the said I.A. had held that considering thrl nature of relief sought for i.e., relief of recovery of money, what is more impoftant is the transaction between the two, rather than, the investigation of the document on which the transaction is said to have been executed. In a suil fbr recovery, it is the liability of the plaintiff ro esrablish his case by proving the claim that he has raised for. The authenticity of the document on which the _jli:g.d-g:! deed is executed would be immaterial for rhe same i.e., so -) far as the contents of the document having been.duly executed between both the parties. 5 This Court is also of the firm view that for establishing the suit for recovery ol money and authenticity of the document of which the so called gift deed executed may not be necessary. Rather, what is , l, necessary is whether there was any transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant No.l, and if yes, it is the duty of the plaintiff to t t prove and establish the same. It is outside the scope of enquiry for the trial court to undertake that which has been sought for vide I.A.No.l125 of 2024 under Order XXVI Rule l0A of Code of Civil Procedure. This Court does not find any illegality on the part of the trail court in rejecting the said claim panicularly taking note of the nature ofsuit and the stage at which the suit has reached.

6. The Civil Revision Petition thus, being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is accordingly rejected. The petitioner, nonetheless, would be at liberty to cross examine the plaintiff in respect of the contention that he has so raised 7 . The observations made by this Court shall not influence the trial court in deciding the suit 4 o As a seque:I, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. No orrier as to costs //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR e ION OFFICER To, \

1. The Vl Additional District Judge and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally (with records, if any)

2. One CC to SRI G tM MOHIUDDIN Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies v HIGH COURT DATED:311O112025 ORDER CRP.No.'159 of 2025 CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS REJECTED b \ ?6lrAiiffi t o ES PATCS *