This Court in PollePati Nursaiah and Ors v. P. Safi,anarayana and Orst dcali n

6. Y.Ravinder Reddy, S/o. Shivaram Reddy, Aged atrout 46 years, Occ. Advocate, R/o. Uddamarri Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 7. Y. Srinivas Reody, Sio. Shivaram Reddy, Aged al:c'ut 37 years, Occ. Business, R/o Uddamarri Village, Shameerpet lVandal, Ranga Reddy District 8. K Susheela, Wo. Raghupathi Reddy, Aged about 60 yr:errs, Occ Housewife, R/o. Gadadepur Village and Mandal, Medak District

9. DrM. Sharat Chandra Reddy, S/o. Late. M. Ram Ri:cdy, Aged about 49 years, Occ. Medical Practitioner, R/o. Flat No.301, Ma'uthi Enclave, ftrlaruthi Nagar. Hyderabad . Rer;p ond ents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the lifcumstances 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.125l 2022 on the file of the Honourable Il Addl. District and Session's Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri Dislrict, at IMedchal until disposal of the main Revision petition and to pass such othe- order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the in.erest of Justice and Counsel for the Petitioner(s). SRl. Ranga Rao Nellutla Counsel for the Respondents: Nalla Mukunda Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CTVIL REVISION PETITION No. l04l of 2024 OR-DER 'l-he present Civil Revision Petition is prel'ened againsl the order dated 27.02.2024 in I.A.No.2l9 of 2024 in O.S. No. 125 of 2022 passetl by the II Additional District & Session's Judge, Medchal-Malkaj giri District at Medchal.

2. The revision petitioner herein is the defendant No.2 to 5 in the suit filed for partition and separate possession. The respondcnt No. I hcrein is plaintill in the suit.

3. 'fhe suit was originally instituted in the year 2008. At the stagc of lurther evidence of the petitioners/defendant No.2 to 5, the petitioners have {iled an underlying application vide I A No 2l9 of 2024 in O.S. No. 125 of 2022 seeking to receive the documents as per list on record while condoning delay, under Order Vlll Rule 1-A(3) ofthe Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC').

4. The triat Court dismissed the underlying interlocutory application, holding that since the questioned document ie' agreement daled 02.12.1985 was already available in the record, 2 thus. thc question of misplacing and tracing out is found to bc Itrlsc: that allcqed document bcing an agreemert nceds to bc exhibited in a suit for specitic perlbrmanoe but canrot bc received as cvidence in a suit lor partition

5. T'hc trial Court held that thc alleged docurrerlt cannot be rcccivcd as it is hit by Ser:tion 17 and 49 of lndirn Rcgistration Acti that the petitioncrs cannot tender the alleged documcnt for the second time lirr filing when it was onoe rejeoted to be received on objection, r.r'ithout challenging the rejcction at re cvant point of I ne

6. 'l he trial Clourl. also held that the alleged docurncnt cannot be received as the pctitioners' affidavit was found to b(l not verified and thc same is in contrary to Order XIX Rule 3 Cl r(l; and that as the allcged document is conveying rights in favor clother par5, it cannot bc considered in a suit for partition betrvectr the parties to thc suit. Accordingly, the Court below held that the srid document sought to be received cannot be accepted as evidenct: 3

7. Aggrieved by the above said order dated 27 022024 the petitioners herein have prel-ened the present Civil Revision Pctition.

8. Fleard learned counscl for the petitioner and leamed counsel lor thc respondents and perused the record'

9. Thc petitioner contend that the impugned order is contrary to laiv and the trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Ordcr VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC by not receiving the said document in thc subjcct suit, despitc it being relevant and necessary evidencc to the main petition; hencc. the said tlocument sought to be received is essential for the effective adjudication of the main suit: and that the trial Court crred in misapplying settled legal principles regarding rcceiving of documents'

10. Per contra, the respondent/ptaintiff herein contend that the said document cannot be received as the document is forged and fabricated; and that the said document is inadmissible as the rccitals of the document speaks about transfer ofrights' Further' the respondent No.9/defendant No 12 herein contend that the present petition is filed without assigning reasons and by not complying ! i I I I I l I I I I : 1 4 the marrdator-v provisions under C)rder XIX I{ule 3 llPCl at the end of the case attcr closing the plaintitf cvidcnoe with an intcntion to cause prejudice to the advcrsarJ' party 'lhus' the application filcd lacks borut Jide.s ancl is liable to bc dismissed'

11. I have taken nol-e of the respcctive contentions rrrglcd'

12. In the present case that though the petitioner-s aro prayed lor rcceiving the said document in o'idence, it is to be noted that the since thc said docurnent is vcq' much available se:l' ing to reoeive the docurnent. claiming thc same as having misplat:cd and traced out is fbtrnd to he not truc. 'fhus- the petitioners herein cantrot scek to receive thc clocuments as evidence tbr turther adiudication of the matter

13.It is pertincnt 1c.l note thal sub rule (l) of Rute l'lL of Order VIII casts a dut-v on the def'endant to produce the documents on the basis of which he plaocs reliancc at the time of llling the written statement. Sub-rule (2) thcreof states that in case iln]' document on which rclianco is placed is not in the possession cr power of the defendant. he shall specify where such document li:s Sub-rule (3) provides that in a situation where the defendant srrcks to produce a ! ! I i ! I i i t ! 5 document r,vhich ought to havc bccrr tiled at thc time of filing wriften statement. the same shall not be allowcd to be rcceivcd in evidcnce u'ithout the lcavc of thc ('ourt.

14. This Court in PollePati Nursaiah and Ors. Vs. P. Safi,anarayana and Orst dcali n!1 with an application filed to receive clocuments at a latcr stagc. held that the leave to file documents undcr Order VII l{ulc I -A(3) CPC can only be grantcd on furnishing sutficient causc .iustil'r'ing the lailure of the delendant to llle the said documcnts along u'ith thc rvritten statcment' l'he relevant obsen'ations arc as under:

12. In Rat'i Salisfi r'. Etlala Dtrrgtt I'ra'vtd2' this Court held as under; Sttb-n c (ll ol-Rule l-A of Ordcr l'lll pernits lhe documenls to be . racaitct! onlt on leoc baing grunttd h1' tht ('ourt Grqnt of leave is not for the mere askine. nor i:i IItc Cottl a mere Post-O{fice lo nv reasolls beins in the ub.senc'e o recelve lloLuments eycn furnished lbr lttilure to lile the ;sa@ \lulcnenl. -ldntilte dty. in the urc on hand, no reasons v'hatsoaver htn'a been.fitrrnshed bt the pctititttter' lct akttte ulcquatc cause been shott,n us lo why the do<:unenls. v'hich could not be filed earlier along v,ith the u'riltan stalemcnl. Huving chosen nol lo give any re(.|'oz\, it iytol oPctt lo Ilrc Palilioncr to contend thal the Court helow shoultl have rcceived the dotumenls' since lhe petitioner's rtght cot tl hc atlverscl.y affe cre tl itr.failure on its Porl to receive the docunents. While it is n0 doubt tue rhat admissibiliNandp docunenls rtre matters which oueht not to be tone inlo al the time of , zotg (r) .a.t.t> +t t 6 '-!JL tfl(ul.\ dlo t \t'ilh th( vt illt- ll tl tlk'l(drc :ut1fuLf9t' .r'qll onlt htSrunt('(l t)tt rtltt14t1!g rL'4y14r1-lr t IJrrlt'itltgl! .1414fo4g J yly'a on thr DQrt t)l thc unplitunt 11Y 1t"r Jilay -tfu tkx't 13. (.otu.stl.fttr lhc raspondtr 's ultt ralitd on l/oru{ttt ti \dntrottu Rtut t lJotll<t llunmurth)3. In lhut LLt;t ulso. lhi.t('ourt tut\tLtkt''1 lhc ,r l'lll Rulc l.lLl J'l! ktr171* rie$ lh. Lh<'unenl,s be lote leave unth:r Orlt q111tot fu g ,11!)r Dtn: dsAit, 'tl \t tttL' Dt( ttt L'url ict uhsentt of' .]tlt rcu-\olls t-illc \lttt(tttcrtl. lt obvcrvr'rl ,lut ttttlv if locutr'nt.\ dl0tt{ v ilh tht v lrarl-t tr Pr(r'c led bt cirt'uttttlttttLL't hL't'<tnd his cttttr'tl trt /ilt lfu' \lttt?tt :nl. th( ('ourl t'tt't tttttsitlar tllttrntt'ttls t ttngvith Ih( rrill(tl ullrl,t.inc tlr dt'.fcndunl l() lilc (kr( tttttt'ttl.\ sub.scqrcntlr' rc lo l5.l'urther. a pcrusal of the irlpugned order sho\\s that the trial Court vizle order dated 20 10.2()2i in IA No.76l rl 2023 llled under Order Xl I{ule l4 CPC. hctd that thc docurrtt nt sotrght to bo lnarked u'as alreadv on rccord hut was nol mill k.ld (lue to an objection raiscd b-v rcspondcnt No.9- Conscquentl\ ' thc Llocullrcllt was not produccd bclitre thc Cotrrt. l6.Horvever. the pctitiorrcrs hercin in thc rcvierv 1'ctition lilcd by the respondent No.9 seeking rcvio\^/ ol- thc ordcr clrrt:d 2() 10 202i vide I.t\. No. I028 of 2023, llled a counter-claim asscrtirrg that the order \.vas.itrstified, yet now seck to reccive thc (lorjulllent earlicr refused tbr rnarkitlg. Ihus, this Court holds lhat tlrc pra)'er ol the petitioner to receive document by the undcrlyir rg interlocutory i I i ! I I l I 7 application is not permissible and is precludcd by the doctrine of estoppel.

17. Since. thc document was re'jectcd due to its adrnissibility on objection raised by thc rcspondent No.9. the petitioncrs herein cannot seek thc samc document to be receivcd for thc second time without challcnging rhc order of rcjection at the relevant point of time at this belated stagc. l:urther. as the allcged document heing an agreement conveys thc rights in f'avour of other party it cannot be consitlcred in suit lirr partiti()n.

18. Further, the rcason of'misplacement and later traced as asserted by the petitioners hcrcin with regard to the alteged document sought to be rcceived is not considcred, as the alleged document was admittedll confiontcd to the witncss during thc cross- examination. Thus, the revision petitioners herein cannot seek to receive the said document as evidence in the main suit under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC

19. ln light of thc lirrcgoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that thc trial Court has rightly held that the petitioners cannot seek to rcceive the documents as evidence for 8 thc ad.iudication of the mattcl' in thc present suit' Co l:'cqtrcntll'' this Court lltrr.ls no ground to intcrlcre rr ith the inrll rllned order iu excrcisc ol' its supcrvisory .lurisdiction undcr \rriclc 227 o1' Constitution of lndia.

20. Iiot the above-mentioncd rcasons' this Cour rs ol'thc vicu' that the orclc:r o[ the trial Courl docs not sut'ibr liorrr an1 infimritr 0r crror

21. Accordingly. the Civil l{cvision I'etition is rl:r'oi..l of'mcrit and is disrnissed. The order datcd 21 '02'2021 irr lA \o 219 ol 2024 in O.S No. 125 of 2022 is sustained No ordcr 'IS to costs' Cotrsequently, misccllancotts pL'titions pent irrr: i1' an'v shall stancl closccl. No order as to costs' SD/- AIIMEO ABDULLA KHAN AS;SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Addl. District and Session s Judge, Medch a l-Malkajgiri District, at Medchal. (with records if any)

2. One CC to SRt. Ranga Rao Nellutla, Advocate [OFLC] 3. One CC to SRl. Nalla Mukunda Reddy, Advocate [CPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies JA/PSL HIGH COURT DATED 15t07t2025 ORDER CRP No 1041 oI 2024 I -----:_:::-.\- .,,. ''...\. ti , ,". i, 14,- ,4 ,.}j I .., (,. (f. a 2 ri0u 2W 1 ^/ -;ra1 ;\1-:' )l/ \:::---::-;_ CIVIi, RI]VISION PI.II-IION IS DISMISSED '/ I I I I I I i t I ! E ! r I t I ! I I ! t I I I I I r I I a ! i ! I i eI I