The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filecl in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim orders in l.A No. 1 of 2021 in ICRP No. 773 of 2021 dated 3OtO4t2O21 granted until further orders pending disposal of the CRP. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 expedite the hearing in the above CRP by taking up the matter for hearing at nearest convenient date on priority. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 793 OF 2021 Civil revision filed under Anicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order dated 22-02 2021 passed in lA No.203 of 2021 in LGOP No. 157 of 2017 on the file of the XXV Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. Between: A. Sharada, Wo, A. Gunavardhan, Age 65 Years, Occ. House wife Rio H-No- 8- 2-2931821L/294 A, Road No. 12, Extension, Banjar Hills, Hyderabad .., PetitionerR-2 LGOP AND 1 Ch. Padmaja. D/o. Ch. Satyanarayana, aged about 50 years, rep by her GPA Holder P. Srihari S/o. P. Srimannaryana, aged aboutT4 years, R/o. Velgangi, Karapa Manclal, East Godavari District. ...RespondenU,Applicant in LGOP 2 Ch. Dheeral, S/o. Ch. A.V. Prasad, Age. Major., Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.40- 7-27, Moghul Ralapuram, Jammisettivari Veedhi, Vijayawada, Krishna District (R-2 is a forrnal party, Hence, not necessary) ...Respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Sectron -151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to expedite the hearing in the above CRP by taking up the matter for hearing at nearest convenient date on priority. CIVIL REVISION PETI TION NO: 799 OF 2021 Civil revision filed under Article 222 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order daled 22-02-2021 passed an lA No.204 of 2021 in LGOp No, 157 of 2017 on the file of the XXV Addl. Chief Judge, City Civit Court, at Hyderabad. Between: A. Sharada, Wo, A. Gunavardhan, Age 65 years, Occ. House wife R/o H.No. g_ 2-2931821L1294 A, Road No. 12, Extension, Banjar Hills, Hyderabad. ... PetitionerR-2 LGOP AND 1 Ch Padmaja, D/o Ch. Satyanarayana, aged about S0 years, rep by her GpA Holder P. Srihari S/o. P. Srimannaryana, aged aboulT4 years. Rio. Velgangi, Karapa lvlandal, East Godavari District. ... RespondenUApplicant in LGOp 2. Ch Dheeraj, S/o. Ch. A.V. Prasad, Age. tvlajor, Occ. Business, R/b. H.No.40- 7-27,.ltAog_hul Rajapuram, Jammisettivari Veedhi, Vijayawada, Krishna District (R-2 is a formal party, Hence, not necessary) ...Respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 expedite the hearing in the above CRP by taking up the matter for hearing at nearest convenient date on priority. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 852 oF 2021 Civil revision filed under Afticle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order daled 22-02-2021 passed in IA No.284 of 2021 in LGOp No. 157 of 2017 on the file of the XXV Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. Between: A. Sharada, Wo, A. Gunavardhan, Age 65 Years, Occ. House wife R/o H.No. 8- 2-2931821U294 A, Road No. 12, Extension, Banjar Hills, Hyderabad. .,. Petitio n e rR-2 LGOP AND 1 Ch Padmqja, D/o- Ch Satyan arayana, aged about 50 years, rep by her GpA Holder P. Srihari S/o. P. Srimannaryana, aged aboulT4 years, R/o. Velgangi, Karapa [t/landal, East Godavan District. ...RespondenUApplicant inLC6p I Ch. Dheeraj, S/o. Ch. A.V. Prasad, Age. tr/lajor, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 40- 7-27,Moghil Rajapuram, Jammisettivari Ve'edhi, Vi.iayawada, Krishna District (R-2.is aiormal-pirty, Hence, not necessary) ...Respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 expedite the hearing in the above cRP by taking up the matter for hearing at nearest convenient date on priority and pass any orders that may deem fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case- Counsel for the Petitioner in C.R.P. Nos.773,793,799 and 852 : Sri. S S R Murthy Counsel for the Respondent No.1 C.R.P. Nos.773,793,759 and 852 : Sri Mahmood Ali The Court made the following: a THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.773 793 799 and.852 of 2O2l COMMON ORDER: Since all these Civil Revision petitions are arising out of the same L.G.O.P. No.157 of 2017, they are analogously heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 2 Civil Revision Petition No.773 of 2O2L: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner to set aside the order dated 22.02.202 1 passed in I.A.No.2O2 of 2O2l in L.c.O.p. No.157 of 2017 by the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. By the impugned order, the petition, filed under Section 151 of the CPC to re-open the L.G.O.p. for the purpose of filing certain documents, was dismissed by the trial Court. 3 Civil Revision Petition No.793 of 2O21: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner to set aside the order dated 22.02.202 1 passed in I.A.No.2O3 of 2O2l in L.c.O.p. No.157 of 2Ol7 by the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. By the impugned order, the petition, filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CpC to 2 cru REwslON Ptfi ON Nos.773, 793, 799 AllD a52 OF 2o2l recall the n,itness-DW. 1 for marking of documents, was dismissed b5' the tria-l Court. 4 Civitr Revision Petition No.799 of 2O2L: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner to set aside the order dated 22.02.2021 passed in I.A.No.2O4 of 2O2l in L.G.O.P. No.157 of 2Ol7 by the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. By the impugned order, the petition, filed under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 of the CPC to receive certain documents, was dismissed by the trial Codrt. 5 Civit Revision Petition No.852 of 2O2Lz This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner to set aside the order dated 22.02.202 1 passed in I.A.No.284 of 2O2l in L.G.O.P. No. 157 ot ZO|Z by the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. By the impugned order, the petition, filed under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the CPC to receive certain documents, was dismissed by the trial Court.

6. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

7. Draped in brevity, the facts of the case are that the applicant filed application uide L.G.O.P. No.157 of 2Ol7 before the Special Court under the A.P. land grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 3 SKSJ CNIL REWSION PEIf|ION Nos.773. 793, 799 AND 452 OF 2ll2 I 1982 at Hyderabad under Section 8(i) of the A.P. land grabbing (prohibition) Act wherein the revision petitioner herein is the respondent No.2. It is stated that the applicant obtained the schedule property i.e., Plot bearing No.564-A41-III admeasuring 759 square yards. Jubilee Hills Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Road No.92, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, from her grandmother namely, Smt. Rama Thulasamma, who is having membership No.19O3 in Jubilee Hills Co-operative House Building Society Limited, uide sa)e deed document bearing . No.4038 of 2O03. Since the applicant is resident of USA, she appointed her GPA holder namely, Sri P.Srihari, who is resident of East Godavari District, on 17 .O9.2O01 to look after the schedule property. While things stood thus, respondent Nos.l and 2 illegally grabbed the schedule property claiming the same to be Plot bearing No.294/A of Sri Venkateswara Cooperative House Building Society and started construction thereon with the help of anti-social elements even after clarifying the boundaries by appointing Advocate Commissioner in O.S.No.2435 of 1980. Hence, the applicant {lled the L.G.O.P. No. 157 of 2017. After framing the issues and when the evidence is closed, respondent No.2- revision petitioner herein f,rled 4 t srs,.,/ CIWL REwStoN PETtION N6 773, 793, 799 AND s52 OF 2o2t I.A.Nos.202, 2O3, 2O4.and.284 of 2O2l to re-open the case, rbca_ll D.W. I and to mark certain documents on his beha-lf.

8. Bv the impugned orders dated. 22.02.2021, the trial Court has dismissed the I.As. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.2 filed these rerrision petitions.

9. Heard Sri S.S.R.Murthy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Mahmood Ali, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Perused the material available on record.

10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that though the death certificate filed by the petitioner shows that Late Smt. Merla Rama Thulasamma died on 16.01.1990, it is stated that said Late Smt. Merla Rama Thulasamma transferred the schedule property in the name of respondent No.l vide letter ref No.JCS/19O3/O2 d,ated 28.01.1992. He further submitted that the Death certificate of the said deceased and the other connected documents mentioned in the petitions, which were not available at the relevant point of time, are just and necessary to be marked in the proceedings as they will have bearing on the result of the L.G.O.p. He also submitted that the trial Court ought to have considered the request for marking of the said documents as they are crucial to decide the case. 5 CN1L REWSION PETIIION Nos 773, 793, 799 AND aS2 OF 2021 Hence, he prayed the Court to aliow these Civil Revision Petitions.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.l submitted that her grandmother namely Late Smt Merla Rama Thulasamma died on 70.02.1994 in Prahalad Babu Ashram in kommaragiri Patnam near Amalapur, East Godavari District. He further submitted that the documents now sought to be marked, are not at all relevant to decide the case and the impugned I.As. are filed with a view to protract the proceedings. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss these Cirril Revision Petitions.

12. In view of the rival submissions made by both the parties, this Court has perused the material avajlable on record. It is apparent that there appears to be dispute as to the exact date of death of Late Smt Merla Rama Thulasamma and boundaqr allotment in respect of the schedule properez.

13. At this juncture, it is apposite to reproduce the paragraph No.9 from the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sugand.hi (dead) Vs. P.Raj Kumartwhich reads as under: "9. It is ofien said thnt procedure is the handmaid of ju stice. Procedural and technicol hstrdles shall not be allou.ted to come in the wag of the court while doinq substantial iustice. If the 'zozo ltol scc 706 I 6 CML REITISION PEftTnN ilos 773 7g3 7g9A'YD852OF2021 procedural uiolation does not aduersary Partg, courts must justice rather than retging We shoutd uiolation . take a len ient uieu uhen an the doctLments under atb-rule (3) (Emphasis supPlied) l4

15. A plain reading of the above would abundantly make it the documents can be clear that if there are cogent reasons' received for proper adjudication of the matter On the aforesaid touchstone, in the instant case' it is note No.131 appraisal noteworthv that (C.No.68alV&ElDt l02\ dated

06.06.2005 by General Government- of A.P. along Administration (V&D) Department' with annexures-IlA, IIB, IIC and XIV deals with the detailed survey conducted by the Vigilance and Enforcement officials in respect of alleged encroachment of Ac'11'O0 guntas of Government land adjacent to the land of l"t Bn'' APSP by the Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society Limited' Hyderabad. So also, the brief note' dated 29'3'2011 sought to be marked. is also relevant to ascertain the area and actual situation of Jubilee Hills Co-operative House Building Society Limited. That apart, since there is dispute as to the exact date of : 7 CIWL REWSION ETfIoN Nos.773, 793, 799 AND as2 OF 2021 death of Smt Merla Rama Thulasarnma, the death certificate now sought to be marked is just and relevant for the purpose of proper adjudication of the matter.

16. In view of the foregoing analysis and peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court, having respectful agreement with the view taken by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, is inclined to direct the trial Court to mark the following three documents: I I I I "(1) Death certificate of late SmtMerla Rama ThulasammaW/ o. MerlaVenkataSubba Rao (2) Certifi.ed @pA of bnef note utde file No.B1/ 347/ 87 dated 29.03.2011 (3) Attested true copA of appraisal note No.131 (C.No.684/ V&E/ D1/ 02) dated 06.06.2005 bg General Administration (V&D) Departmen| Gouemment of A.P along with annexures-IlA, IIB, IIC andXN.'

17. Hence, while I.As. Nos. 202 and 203 of 202 I stand allowed, I.A. Nos. 2O4 and 284 of 202 1 stand a-llowed in part to the extent of receiving the above mentioned documents.

18. Accordingly, the C.R.P.Nos.773 and 793 of 2O2l are allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 22.02.2021 I passed in I.A.Nos.202 and 2O3 of 2O2l in L.G.O.P. No.157 of I i I 8 srs.J CNIL REllsIoN ETIT|oN Nos-773, 793 799 AND a32 OF 2O2l 2Ol7 by the trial Court directing it to re-open the L.G-O.P and recall the evidence of DW. I for marking the aforesaid documents. The C.R.P.Nos.799 and 852 of 2021 are allowed in part directing the trial Court to mark the aforesaid documents' Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL ANT REGISTRAR A ECTION OFFICER \ To,

1. 2

4. The XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad One CC to Sri S S R Murthy, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Mahmood Ali, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies DUghv HIGH COURT DATED:1Ol02l2o2t. COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.773,793,799 and 852 of 2021 { H6 SIA 1fl I'IAR 2U6 , v t D6, .$ r,,.. f -l o C.R,P. NOS. 773 AND 793 OF 2021 ARE ALL OWED AND C.R.P. NOS. 799 AND 852 OF 2021 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. @ \t s12/ ...-...-- I