Heard Sri M. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri v. Ramchander Goud

.Revision Petitioner/Respondent No.6/Defendant No'6 AND 1 2 a 4 q 6 M. Mohan Rao, Son of Late M. Krishna Rao, Aged ab-out 51 years' occupation.Business,presentlyresidingatH.No.l0-3-22,EaStMarreopally' Secunderabad. ...Respondent No.1 /Petitioner/Plaintiff Smt. Rani, Wife of Late M. N. Ratnavelu' Aged about 75 years, Occupation' fforsenof,i, Resident of H.No.1 84, Kharkhana, Secunderabad N. R. Narender, Son of Late M. N. Ratnavelu, Aged a-bout 59 years' Cjccrpation. Private Service, Resident of H.No '184, Kharkhana, Secunderabad N. R. Ravinder, Son of Late M. N. Ratnavelu, Aged about 53 years,. o;;;p;ti;;. S;rvlie, nesioent of H.No.184, Kharkhana, Secunderabad N. R. Niranjan Kumar, Son of Late M. N. Ratnavelu, Aged about 6-1 years' ijilp;6,i. Cr";"nily wort<ing in Kuwait, Resident of H'No 184' Kharkhana' Secunderabad Smt. S. Dhana Laxmi, Wife of Santosh Baba, Daughter of Late M N' i"i'nu-r"rr, Astoiuoutss years, occupation. Household, Resident of H.No. 1 84, Kharkhana, Secunderabad ...Respondent No.2 to G/Respondents No'1 to S/Defendant No.1 to 5 r t 7 B M/ s. Kolleti ()ons:ructions Lld, A registered Company, hai,ing its office at 604, Ctrenoy Trad e Centre, Parklane, Seiunderabad, 'Refieserrtet Managing Di ecto., K. Seshagiri Rao K. Seshagiri lao, Son of K. Sriniv-as Rao, Aged about 63 1,ears, r)ccupation. Business, Rersident of Plot No.303, West'lMinedpally, Secunderabad by its ...Re,spondent No.7 & 8/Respondent No.7 & 8/Defendant No.7 & g lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition unde r 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 direct the I Additional ch ef .rudge, city civil court, Secunderabai tc proceed with the Suit vide O.S.No.1 ' 7 of 2011 without insisting for filing and prr:duction of original Registered Sale De-,d Document No.13S4 of 2011 dated 02.12.2010. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 i' Petition unde r Ser:tion '1 5'1 CPC praying that in the circu.nstan:es stated in the affidavit filed ir suprport of the petition, the High court nray be: pleased to suspend the Order pass;ed in 1.A.No.2594 of 2024 in O.S.No. 11i ot iOl.l dated 30.12.2024 on rt't< fi er of the I Additional chief Judge, city civil court, Secunderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl M SURENDER RAO representing SRI V RAMCHANDER GOUD counsel for the Res;pondent No.1 : sRr M v pRATAp KUMAR repres;enting SRI VEERA BABU GANDU The Court made the fotlowing: ORDER IION'BLE SRT JUSTICE ABHINAN D I{UMAR SITAIIILI Civil Revision Petition No.736 of 2025 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed, aggrieved by the order, dated 30.I2.2O24 passed in I.A.No.2594, of 2024 in O.S.No.ll7 of 2011 by the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

2. Heard Sri M. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri V. Ramchander Goud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.V. Pratap Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that the 1sr respondent- plaintiff hled O.S.No.1 17 of 2Oll for specific performance against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 8. In the said suit, the 1"t respondent has fited I.A.No.2594 of 2024 seeking a direction to the petitioner to produce the original sale deed, dated O2.L2.2OLO before the trial Court for verihcation of its i I I I l1 I ! I 2 genuinerless;. Without appreciating aly rlf the contenticns raised by the petitioner, the tria' Court allowerl thc said 1.A. uide order dated 3O.'-'2-2a24 and directed th,: petitioner to produce the or:iginal sale deed, cle .terl 02.l2.2OlO,by lO.Ol.2A25.

4. Leirrne,d Senior Counsel had further contended that sirLce the 1"t respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit, th: trial Court cannot compel the petitroner to produ<;e thi: original sale deed, which is in his c'ustody, ancl the -" respondent also cannot comllel the petition:r firr rnarking of the said docum'lnt. Learned Senior Co.rnsel had further contended that the petition :r i s willing to produ.ce the origin zLl s: [e deed before thc lrial Court and let the trial Court rel.urn the originirl sale deed dated 02.12.2O1O alter its examin rtio e.

5. Orr the other hand, learned counsel appearing for lst respondent had contended that the 1''r respondent has filel cr:rtified copy of the original sale deerl, ald it was mirked as trx.A-4O, however, there were' certain 3 discrepancies in the said sa-le deed and that necessitated the 1"r respondent to file the said,,. I.A. seeking a direction to the petitioner to produce the original sale deed, so as to enable the trial Court to compare the original sare deed with that of the certified copy of the sa,le deed filed by the 1"1 respondent. Hence, the trial Court was justified in allowing the said I.A. in favour of the 1"t respondent. Therefore, there are no merits in the civil revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by both the parties, is of the view that the petitioner has given an undertaking thai'he will produce the origina,l sare deed before the trial Court for examining the original sa-le deed, dated O2.12.2O1O. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if the Civil Revision petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to produce the original sale deed, dated O2.I2.2OIO before the trial Court on the next date of hearing. The tria_t Court shall examine the original sale \ I , I 4 deed and take the photo copy of the same for adjudicati rn of the case. It is open for the 1"t responder t tc, raise about the validity of thr: sairl sale deed in irccc,rdance with law. Upon producing the original szJe <leed, dated 02.12.2O1O by the petitioner, the resporrdr:nt No.1 is entitled to peruse the sa:le in the Court premises. Since the suit pertains 1o the year 2011, the trial Court is directed to dispose oI the same ) as expedit iou:;ly as possible.

7. With th.t: above observations, this Civ:i Re '.ision Petition 1s disposed of. No costs. 9, ,,_, A" a se'r1uel, miscellaneous applicatior: s pending if any, she 11 s'-and closed. To, //TRUE COPYII SD/. N CHAND DEF'UTY ItA SE KHAR ITEGIS TRAR /\ \i SECTION OFFICER i tr; tr 5j['v1f;"ffi,Efl.,s#f.,s*lel";.f : r, ADK " HIGH COUFIT DATED:281(t312025 p ORDER CRP.No.736 of 2025 '.-'::r E :rTAiF o/} "4 'l i I'ii\ ?025 (.; ) ) i i l i DISPOSING ,OF THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS $0 t\ \6