High Court · 2025

No'2IDEFENDANT No'2 Ii"'YF*ssl'A?'"*'5??s ^-1Rl:?H-,f-al?,T,i**5}i!',1;:{?Ji:12.""1%#o"a'u'vears'occservice' ...RESPONDNET No'1/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT No"l '*'Eoi.',EYl:li"lIi1'Ji3i?.:x':3'?3#:3[X'i["J',?HiAYF:fl'"Ji',"' Giunaeraoao - 500003 ...RESPoNDNET No'2/RESPONDENT No'llPLAlNTlFF '3L?f,1?EY:At-H1i,il:4^;1i:?s;:i'l}iElt'f; dGLt s."'naerabad - 5oooo3 "'RESPONDENT No'3/ RESPONDENT No'3/DEFENDANT No'3 SXiiTosJ',E'i lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in -pltitii.linJ Higt'' cor.t may be pleased to stav te arridavit flea n suppoii'"r'tnl att further proceedings ir'6.6.-ri" 213 of ZOIA on the file of the Hon'ble I Additionar chief Judge, city civir court, secunderabad, pending disposal of the Counset for the petitioner: SRt BAGLEKAR AKASH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: VENKATA PRADEEP VATTLA The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRIJUSTTCE LAXMI NARAYANA ALTSIMTIY CRP .No .758of 025 2 ORDERz

17.12-2o24,passed The Civil Revision Petition is hled assailing the order' dated by the I Additional Chief Judge' City Civil Court, Secunderabad in l'A'No'2402 of 2024 in O'S'No'213 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the applicadon frled under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) r/w Section 151 of CPC to receive the Witl deed' dated 08.02'20 24' atdto mark the same as exhibit was allowed' 2 Heard Sri B'Akash Kumar' learned counsel for the revlslon petitioner/defendant No'l and Sri V.pradeep, Ieamed counsel for respondentNo'l/defendant No l '

3. Petitioner herein is delendant No'2' respondent No'l herein is the defendant No'I' respondent No'2 herein is the plaintiff and resPondent No'3 herein ts delendant No'3 in the suit' For will be rct-erred to as theY are conrrenience, hereinafter lhe parttes arraYed in the suit'

4. Briefly stated the [acts o[ thc case relevant for adjudication of the present Civil Revision Petition are that plaintilf fited a suit in 2 LA'A. J CR?.No-258 olt Z02S schedule properties. O.S.No.2t3 of 2018 agamst the defendants for partition and separate possession of the plaint .A, to ,C, The plaintiff and the defendant are brothers. Defendant No. I entered appearance and filed written shtement specifically contending that the suit schedule properties are the self_ acquired properties of their father; that their father executed a Will deed, dated 08.02.2014, and got it register ed on 26.02.2004; and rhar as the plaintiff and other defendants are signatories ro the said Will deed, the same is binding on ali of them and hence, on the sole ground itself the suit is not maintainable and sought ro disrniss the sult.

5. During the pendency of the suit, def.endant No. I filed an application vide I .A.No.2 402 of 2024 under Order VII t Ru te t A(3 ) r/w Section 15l of CpC to receive the Will deed dated 0g.02.2004 and to mark the same as exhibit. Defendant No.2 fi led counter resisting the said application. The trial Court vide irnpr-rgned order dated 17.12.2024 allowed the said application with an obser_r,ario. that the issues whether Will deed is execured by Dubbaka Natarajzr Chary or not, and the admissibility and relevancy ol the said document can be decided at the time of, tlial and deferrdant No.? .,. J LNA, J ol 202s CRP-No'258 has every right to challenge the said document' 6ggrieved bY the impugned order' defendant No'2 frted the present revision petition' No'2 submitted l2.l2.2llg,thereby

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant that defendant No'1 had already referred to the alleged Will deed dated 08'02'2004 in the written shtement f,rled by him on clearly indicating his knowledge of the said document at that earrier stage, but he irled the present application after a lapse of six years from the date of filing of the suit and that too, after completion of the plaintiff s side evidence and despite the same, the trial Court erred in allowing the said application without appreciating the fact that no satisfactory explanation has been offered by defendant No'l for the inordinate delay in frling the alleged Will deed' He further submitted that the trial Courl lailed to take note of the fact that in his written statement' defendant No'l stated that Will deed is a registered one' however' he has filed a notarized will deed along with the present application' which itself falsifies the case of defendant No' l and lrence' he prayed to allow the Revision. ) \ 4 a*.*r.rrr'oflr', 7 Per contra, leamed counsel for respondent No l/defendant No. I submitted that on due consideration of the facts and clrcumstances of the case and the material placed on ttial Court has rightly allowed the application and no g made out to interfere with the impugned order and dismiss the Revision. record, the prayed to rounds are

8. Bare perusal of the record discloses that the casc of defendant No.2 is that the suit schedule properries are the self- acquired properties of their father and that he has executed wilr deed dated Og.02.2}O4,which was notarized on 18.07.2004. On rhe othe. hand' the praintifrs case is that himself and rhe defc,da.rs are coparceners of the joint hindu undivided famiry and that their father has bequeathed the said properties in favour of plaintitland delendant Nos. I to 3 on 26.02.2004 by way of Will. T.he ptaintill and defendant No.l appears to be sailing together as borh are relying on the Will deed dated Og.O2.2OO4. However. defbndant No.2 asserts that the Will deed sought to be marked b1, clcf-endarrt No.l is a sham and fabricated document inasmuch as it was notariz-ed on 18.07.2004, when, admittedty, their iather passed away on 26.02.2004' ) LNA, J of 2025 CRP-No'258 to note that defe It is Pertinent

9. statement has specifically mentioned 08.02.2004 said to have been executed bY therefore, it cannot be said that he has come up ndant No'l in the written about the Witl deed dated their father and with a new Plea or rxr after comPletion documentbywayoffrlingthepresentapplicati of plaintiffs side evidence'

10. The only discrepancy is that in the written statement' it was mentioned that the Will deed was executed on 08'02'2004 and was registered on 26'02'2004 and whereas' in the application filed to receive the Will deed' it is mentioned that the Will deed dated 08.02.2004 was notarized on 18'07'2004' It. Therefore' the truth or otherwise ol the lespective stands taken by both the parties can be adjudicated only after tult-fledged trial of the suit' In such an event' the prayer of det-endant No'l to receive the Will deed as exhibit cannot be rejected at the threshold and he should be given reasonable opportunity to establish his case' Further,thetrialCourthasrightlyobservedthattheadmissibility and relevancy of the said document can be decided at the time of triat ofthe suit and defendant No'2 has got every right to challenge the said document. 6 cRp.N..2ss r;l!o'2!

12. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered optnton that the tt-ial Court has rightly allowed the aforesaid application by the rmpugned order and the petitioner has faired to pornt out any illegaliry or illegaliry in the tmpugned order warranting interference by this Court. l3 Accordingly, this Revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand crosed.

14. No costs. To, //TRUE COPYII oe,ui?tlofllHX* /''.r tlj SECTION OFFICER

1. t Additionat Chief 2 onec*o sR r^::fl:'H[-"#^:Tff:::?lrr", 3. One CC to SRI VENKATA PRADEEP VAITLA Advocate [OpUCJ 4. Two CD Copies SS/gh A,/ ry. ( {E S 14 lrR 0 3 sEP 206 a\ r'.i c '') i l !1 ,/ HIGH COURT DATED:1 T tO6t2OZs ORDER CRP.No.2S8 of ZOZi DISMISSING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS b o