The High Court · 2025

...PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF AND

1. Siddenki Chinna Narsimha Reddy, S/o. Late Sathi Reddy, Aged 60 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. 2-133, Pedda Amberpet village, Hayathnagar Minual, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Siddenki Bhupal Reddy, S/o. Late Sathi Reddy, Aged 44 years, Occ. {griculture, R/o. 2-133, Pedda Amberpet village, Hdyathnagar Mahual, Ranga Reddy District.

3. Siddenki Achi Reddy, Aged about lvlajor, 4. Siddenki Raji Reddy, Aged about Major, 5. Siddenki Shiav Reddy, Aged about Major, 6. Siddenki Jaganmohan Reddy, Agei about Major, 7. Siddenki Narsimha Reddy, Aged about Major, I ; i I (

8. Siddenki Pratap Reddy, Aged about Major, 9. Siddenki Chinna Narasimha Reddy, Aged about Major, Respondents 3 to g are sons of Siddenki Ramaiah @ Ram Reddv. All are agriculturists and R/o H No 2-133, peddaamberpet-virrigu, iiGtniirsli Manual. Ranga Reddy District. . '10. Gagenepally_ Ravindhar R9!dy S/o Late Narsimha Reddy, Aged about 44 years, occ. Business, R/o. Nakrekar post and Mandar, ttatgonoiDit.;i-' ' ' 11 Lashkar Ranga Reddy, S/o. L.Na.rasimha Reddy, Aged about 43 years, R/o. 2-115, Pedda Amberp'et Viilage. Hayathnagar nldnuai, Rang;R;dy D;;ir;i- l2.Lashkar Venkat Reddy, S/o. L Narasimha Reddy, Aged about 41 years, R/o. 2-115, Pedda Amberp6t Viilage, Hayathnagr. MZnrri, nanga-neAO'y Diiirtil ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS (Respondents No. 3 to 12 are formal parties to this revision) Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K. Bhanu prakash representing Sri Koth.apalli Sai Sri Harsha Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: Sri K. Rajashekar The Court made the following: cOUnaOru ORDER THE HONOURA BLE SRIru STICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVIL REVIS ION PETITIO N Nos.363 an d 389 of2025 COMMON ORDE, R: Since the issue involved in these two Revisions is arising out of the same Suit, and the parlies also being the same, they are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order. 2 \Heard Mr. K.Bhanu prakash, leamed Senior representing Mr. Kothapalli Sai Sri Harsha, learaed counsel fbr the petitioner, and Mr. K.Rajashekar, learned counsel for the respondents Counsel,

3. civil Revision petition No.363 of 2025 is filed assailing the order dated 20.01.2025, in I.A.No.861 of 2024 in O.S.No. 124 of 2011, passed by the leamed X Additional Districr and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar; and Civil Revision petition No.g20 of 2025 is filed assailing the order dated 20.01.2025, in I.A.No.862 of 2024 in O.S.No. t24 of 2011, passed by the leamed X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Iteddy District at L.B. Nagar. 4' vide rhe impug.red orders; the Trial court dismissed the two petitions fi,ed by the petitioner rrerein, one under. order XVrIr Rurc I7 read with Section 15l of civil procedure code, r90g (fbr short, 'cpc') sceking to reca, pw.l Page2ofl0 for the purpose of marking documents, and the other petition under Section l5 1 of CPC for reopening the evidence of PW. I so as to enable her to mark the listed documents

5. The facts of the case are that, the petitioner, an illiterate woman who claims to have been misled by the village eldcrs, filed a suit for partition of the joint family property and for separate possession of her 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. The suit was filed in the vear 201 I . The petitioner's father, Late Chiguruinthala Balaiah @ B,al Reddy, was adopted by Mrs. Siddenki Rangamma and Mr. Siddenki Narsi Reddy. The latter was the grandfather of respondent Nos.l and 2 herein. Mrs. Siddenki Rangamma was married prior to the year 1954. However, following the demise of her husband, she was adopted by the petitioner's father. Consequently, the share ol Mrs. Siddenki Rangamma devolved upon the petitioner's father. After his marriage, the petitioner's father began residing in the same village as the petitioner, along with the parents of respondent Nos. I to 8.

6. The agricultural activities on the property were carried out jointly by the petitioner's father and her maternal uncles, namely Mr. Sathi Reddy and Mr. Ram Reddy. The Kasara Pahani records also indicate that the names of the petitioner's father and her maternal uncles were reflected in the revenue records, although the Suit schedule property was exclusively owned by the Page 3 of l0 -7 petitioner's flather. Despite the fact that the parents of respondent Nos. I to 8 submitted a declaration before the Land Reforms Tribunal claiming possession of the suit schedule property, the said declaration was not accepted by the Tribunal. Nevertheless, respondent Nos.l to 8 managed to take possession of certain portions of the land 7, According to the petitioner, although respondent Nos.l and 2 placed strong reliance on a partition deed that was allegedly executed, and even assuming, without admitting that such a partition deed is genuine, it rs submitted that subsequent to the execution of the said deed, Mr. Ram Reddy and Mr. Sathi Reddy, along with the petitioner's father, sold portions of the propefty to third parties and also obtained release deeds, horvever, these release deeds were not produced or brought on record. Furthermore, when the petitioner's sons filed an application to set aside the ex parte orders, the same was dismissed. She intended to confront DW. 1 with the above-mentioned documents during cross-examination conducted on 06.09.2024 and again on

23.09.2024. However, this was opposed by DW.l, who stated that he would only respond to questions pertaining to the documents that had been formally marked as exhibits. As a result. he did not address the documents that remained unmarked. The petitioner contends that these unmarked documents are crucial to the adjudication of the case. These documents include certified copies of ! Page 4 of l0 Pahaniesfromtheye.I-lg54-55,aswellaScertifiedcopiesofsaledeedsand release deeds. The petitioner submits that if pemission to mark these documents is not granted, she wilt suffer a substantial [oss' Accordingly' she has filed two petitions praying the Trial Court to reopen and recall the evidence of PW.1 for the purpose of marking the unmarked documents' 8 It is these two petitions which siood dismissed by the Trial Court leading to filing of the instant Revisions' g. Leamed Senior counsel foi the petitioner contended that the Trial coutl failed to appreciate the fact'that the petitioncr is only seeking permission to markdocumentswhicharea|readyonrecord.Itwasfurthercontendedthatthe reason for filing the aforesaid two petitions was that the respondent Nos' 1 and 2 and their counsel before the Trial Court failed to cooperate and opposed the petitioner during cross-examination when questions were raised regarding the said documents. l0.ItwasfurthercontendedbythelearnedSeniorCounselforthepetitioner that the positions of the parties are interchangeable and when respondent Nos'1 and 2 object to clear marking the relevant documents that are essential for adjudicating the matter, the petitioner was compelled to file the aforementioned two petitions seeking reopening and recalling of PW' I's evidence for the purposeofmarkingtheunmarkeddocuments'Fufther'theTrialCoud'sfinding l'/ / Page 5 of l0 - that the documents sought to be marked were not pleaded in the praint is incorrect in light ol the settled position of law. I l" I-astly, it was contended by the reamed Senior counset fbr the petitioner that technicalities shourd not obstruct the adjudication of a suit on its merits. The Trial court denying permission to mark the unmarked documents wourd effectively close the petitioner's uni cause irreparable loss. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Triat Court and to allow the instant revisionq. "ur"

12. Per contra, the learned 6ounsel for the respondents opposing the Revisions, contended that the impugned orders r.rnder challenge in the instant Revisions are totally in accordance with law and have been passed giving justiflable reasons and, therefore, there is hardly any scope of interrere.ce left tbr the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constiturion of India. 13' According to the leamed counser for the respondents what is necessary to be looked inro is rhat, the Suit, in fact originally was one which was filed in the year 20l l rhat the present I.As. have been fired after about 14 years i.e. in the year 2024, and that too at the fag end of triar. It was arso the contention of the leamed counsel for the respondents that since the sons of the petitioner had earlier relying upon the very same documents moved a petition for setting aside of the ex parte proceedings, which stood rejected and has since attained finality, the petitioner now cannot be permitted to bring on record and mark those documents which were otherwise rejected by the Trial Court in the past at the instance of the petitioner's sons.

14. Lastly, it was contended by the leamed counsel for the respondents that all the grounds raised by the petitionLr in the instant Revisions showing reasons why they intend to rely upon these documents now and want to recall and reopen the evidence of PW.l for marking of these documents are all after thought grounds raised only for the purpose o[ hling instant Revisions.

15. Thus, for all aforesaid reasons, the leamed counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the instant Revisions

16. Having gone through the contents and subrnissions made by both the parties, admittedly the petitioner had filed a Suit for partition and joint possession in the year 2011 and the two sons of the petitioner were also impleaded as defendant Nos.l I and 12 in the Suit. The defendant Nos. 1 I and 12 had been proceeded ex parte by the Trial Court on their non-appearance in spite of serwice of notice. The trial had commenced and the petitioner herein also got examined herself as PW.l at the initial stage of the trial itself somewhere in the year 2011-12. While PW.l had given her evidence, Exs.Ai to 10 were marked. Subsequently, when the matter was posted for further 7 PagcTofl0 evidence of the petitioner, an I.A. was filed on her behalf i.e. I.A.No.l181 ol 2017 to recalI her evidence and to receive certain further documents. This I.A stood allorved and PW. I entered re-appearance for evidence and, subsequently, two more documents rvere marked i.e. Exs.A 1 | and 12. Thereafter, the evidence of PW. I stood closed and the matter.was posted for the evidence ot- PWs.2 and 3. They were also examined and cross-examined on 07.01.2022 and the matter next stood posted for defendants evidence

17. Meanwhile, the defendant Nos.ll and 12, who are the sons of the petitioner and who had been proceeded ex parte filed I.A.No. I 5 1 of 2022 under order lX Rule 7 of cPC seeking for setting aside of the ex parte order. [n the said application under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC, the defendant Nos.li and 12 have relied upon the very same documents which the petitioner now wants [o be brought on record as an exhibit i.e. the registered sale deeds, release sale deeds and certified copies of the pahanies. Howbver, the said apprication fired for setting aside olthe ex parte proceedings stood re.iected on05.02.2024.The said order was subjected to challenge before the High court in another Revision which was registered as Civil Revision Petition No.601 of 2024. The High Court also dismissed the said Revision on 12.08.2024. 18' After the defcndant Nos.l l and 12 were unsuccessful in bringing these documents on record, the instant I.As. were filed by the petitioner herein i.e. I.A.Nos.861 and 862 of 2024 in September, 2024. In between, the proceedings '.i before the Trial Courl proceeded to record the defendants evidence, who were also cross-examined and the matter was thereafter posted for final arguments in the Suit on 20.1 1.2024.It is at this stage that the aforesaid two I.As. fited by the petitioner which stood dismissed vide the impugned orders on 20.0 t.2025 and are under challenge in the instant Reyisions.

19. From the afore given admitted factual backdrop, what is evidently clear is that, a Suit was already pending consideration for almost 15 years. PW. l's evidence was recorded almost a decade back. During all this time when the Suit was pending before the Trial Court, the petitioner never thought of getting these documents marked. The petitioner also did not think it proper to get these documents marked when the petitioner had earlier moved an I.A. seeking to recall the evidence of PW.1 and to receive certain further documents, which was allowed by the Triat Court and ceftain documents were also marked at the behest of petitioner vide I.A.No.1181 of 2017. The petitioner also did not care to get these documents marked when PWs.2 and 3 also have got themselves examined. Subsequently, the defendants evidence also stood closed who were also cross-examined at length by the petitioner. That, it is at this stage, rvhen the Suit itself after a long drawn battle was fixed for final arguments that the I.A.No.861 of 2024 was filed by the plaintiff seeking to recall the evidence of Page9ofl0 PW.l and I.A.No.862 of 2024 was filed to reopen the evidence of PW.l to mark listed documcnts, who had earlier also been recalled in the past, in the vear 2017.

20. [n the aforesaid factual backdrop, if the Trial Court reaches to the conclusion that the purpose of filing of I.A.Nos.86l and 862 of 2024 by the netitioner was deliberate, and with. malahde intention of protracting the I \ proceedings, and also the said documents are not relevant documents so far as the petitioner's Suit is concerned, which is primarily a Suit for partition and separate possession. the same cannot be found fault with nor can it be said to be either perverse or contrary to the statutory provisions and settled legal position as well.

21. What is also pertinent to take note of, is that, the reference of these documents does not find place in the plaint itself and these documents are t t sought to be marked without there being any foundational basis in respect of the Suit and more particularly lor the relief sought for.

22. For all the aloresaid reasons, this Court is also of the considered opinion that no case for interdicting the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court, in exercise of superwisory jurisdiction under Arlicle 227 has been made out. Neither is there any strong case made out by the petitioner to hold that the impugned orders are per se illegal or bad in law. The instant Revisions thus \ Page l0 of l0 being devoid of merit, deserves to be and are accordingly, dismissed'

23. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any' shall stand closed' However, there shall be no order as to costs /,TRUE COPY'/ SD'. MOHD. ISMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J

4. and Sessions Judge' Ranga ReddY District at L B. The X Additional District ::1" to Sri Kothapalli sai sri Harsha' Advocate toPucl One CC to Sri K Ralashekar' naG""t" [OPUCI Two CD CoPies V11/gh -=7 I HIGH COURT DATED: 1310612025 I 1,'.. o C) '_! ',., B 1 s \ c/ 0 EUA{ 2W ,1 ,. a (_- ;7' COMMON ORDER CRP.No.363 & 389 ot Z02i DISMISSING BOTH THE CRP'S 6 x6