The High Court · 2025

...Petitioners/Respo r Jents/Defendants AND 1 2 K. Narender, S/o. K. tvlohan Rao, Age.49 Yea.rs, Occ.: Bu; ress' Rl/o Plot f.i".i0, sr.v, Nivas, Ivlegha Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad K. Murali, S/o. K. Mallaiah, Age. 40 Years, Occ: Service, Il o H No' B-2- 293/235, Road.No. 14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad'

3. Mohammed Zaheeruddin, S/o. Late. Mohd' Tajuddin, Age 5'1 Y-ears' Occ: " B;;i;;;;,-Rv;. H.tto. s-+1s7184, owaisi colonv, M D' Lihr: , Tolichowki' 4. Mrs. Sakeena Begum, W/o. Late. Mohd Tajuddin,.foe' r' Years' Occ: ' ii;;r;illd, Fvo fi r.ro. s'-?--4778a' &ii.i C6ionv,'M'"D Lir :s, Tolichowki' Hyderabad. Hyderabad.

5. Dandu Laxminarayana, S/o. Dandu Lingaiah, Age 69 Ye: 's, Occ- Retired " EddG; Fii ;. H N"-8-a-b30/D, Yellar;ddvsud'a, Amee.et, Hvderabad' 6. Mrs. Qamar Sultana, Wo. Syed Omer Qadri, Age 59 Ye t rs' Occ: Housewife' F/o. H.No.5-9-1 109, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad'

7. Mrs. Sharifa E. Lasania, W/o. Farooq E. Lasania, Age' 55 Years' Occ: ffoJsenotO, R/o. H.No. 6-1-103/8, Abhinavanagar, Padne raonagar' Secunderabad.

8. Smt. Razia l. Lasania, Wo. Mohd. lqbal E La99f iq,Agt 60.Years',Occ: Household, Fl/o. H.no. 1-3-183140146110, Gandhi Nagar' tyoeraoao' g.MirzaAqhilBaig,S/o.MirzaQadeerBaig,Age43Year;Occ:Business'Fl/o' Moghalpura, HYderabad.

10.Mirza Ahmed baig, S/o. Mirza Qadeer Baig, Age' 46 Yer s, Occ: Business' Fl/o. MoghalPura, HYderabad, 1 1. Shaik Fareeduddin, S/o. Shaik Hussain, Age. 66.Years. )cc: Retired Service, nio. H.f.lo. 9-4-84/1OB/A, Kakatiyanagar, Hyderabad' nyli. u.r.to. zz-l-ssa, Kotla Alijah, Ghadialgath, Hyderarr rd'

12.Smt. Asia Habeeb, W/o. Salahuddin Ahmed, Age: 60 Y: trs, Occ: Household' - 13.Mrs. Avesha Shams, Dio. Khaja Shamshuddin, Age' 4' /ears, Occ - H'"r.is,ji'oto, nyo. H.Nio. 13-5-65, Karwan, Toop Khana, - yderabad' 'l4.Mrs. Amina Younus Khan, W/o. Mohd. Younus Khan, Al e- 53 Years, Occ' ' H"rddn"io, F/o. H.No. 4-a-123613, Kingkoti Road, Abitl: , Hyderabad' 't5.Mohd. Samiullah, S/o. Mohd. Arifullah, Age. 41 Years, ( cc' Household' Rl/o' H.No. 11-3-188, New Mallepally, Hyderabad. - l6.M.A.MannaKhan,Sio.M.A.SamiKhan,Age'51Year;,Occ:Engineer'.Fl/o' H.f.fJ. iiis, Road.'No. 36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderq-bad. All the respo-ndents No ) io r o ,ie i"presented of tnelr c.e.e. Hoider K Nare r Jer S/o K Mohan Rao, Age. 49 Years, Occ. Business, Ri./o. Plot. No. 46, Surya Nivas, Megha Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

17.Mohd. Chunnu, S/o. Late. Mohd. Suleman, Age. 45 Years, Occ: Agriculture, Rl/o. H.No. 23-41111, Kondapur, Harsha Toyota Showroom, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

18.Mohd. lmran Khan, S/o. Gulam Ahmed Khan, Age. 37 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat.No. 302, VBG Gardens, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.

19.Mirza Khusro Baig, Sio. Miza Quadeer Baig, Age. 39 Years, Occ: Service, Rl/o. Mogalpura, Hyderabad.

20.Ayesha Shames, Dio. Khaja Shamshuddin Ahmed, Age. 26 Years, Occ: Student, Rlio. H.No. 13-5-68, Karwan, Tope Khana, Hyderabad. 21 .Halera Shames, D/o. Khaja Shamshuddin Ahmed, Age. 25 Years, Occ: Student, Rl/o. H.No. 13-5-68, Kerwan, Tope Khana, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No. 1272 ol 2018, on the file Hon'ble XV Additional District Judge Cum ll Additional Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5, 7 to 2'l: SRI V RAHUNATH Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI L ARAVIND REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TI! LANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE NARSING RAO Nrl IIDIKONDA DATE:23.12.2o25 CTVIL REVISION PETITION NO.949 OF "to20 Betweerr: Mohd.Ghouse and others. ...Pe :itioners And Sri K.Narender and others. ... F , spondents ORDER This Civil Revision Petition, under ArticL' 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petition( s-defendants aggrieved by the docket order, dated l(t 03.2O2O, in I.A.No.582 of 2O2O in O.S.No. 1272 of 2Ol8 prssed by the learned XV Additional District Judge-cum-Il Adrl tional Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Kukatpally, u,tL reunder and whereby application filed under Order VII RuLr 14 read with Section 151 of C.P.C to receive the enlist: I documents against the respondents-defendants, was allo'r ed subject to proof of and relevancy of the documents. .a NN R,J ctp_949_2O2O

2. Heard Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri V.Raghunath, Iearned counsei for respondent Nos.2 to 5,7 to 27 and Sri L.Aravind Reddy, Iearned counsel for respondent No.6. Perused the record

3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.l to 3 and 5 herein had frled a suit in O.S.No. 1272 of 2018 on the file of learned XV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Kukatpally, seeking to declare that the decree and judgment, dated 13.1O.2016 passed in O.S.No.1258 of 2008 on the file of learned XIV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, as null and void and not binding on them and also for perpetual injunction against tJ.e petitioners herein and respondent Nos.17 to 21.

4. The revision petitioners are the defendants before the trial Court. It is stated that during the pendency of ttre suit, ttre respondents-plaintiffs filed the aforesaid interlocutory application seeking permission to receive the documents enlisted along with the petition. The said application was allowed by the learned trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the prerent Civil Revision Petition has been frled 1 NNR,] crp 949_2020 by the petitioners-defendalts. It is stated that n the entire plaint, the plaintiffs have not mentioned the documents referred to in I.A. No.582 of 2O2O, nor have hey pleaded about the said documents in arly manner whrt soever. It is contended that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 along with respondent Nos.4 and 6 to 16, wittrout filing an1 mpleadment petition and despite not being parties to the suit surprisingly Iiled an application under Order VII Rule 14 rea: with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to rt', eive the said documents. The learned trial Court, r,r'r t tout proper consideration, allowed the said application.

5. The learned counsel for the petitior( rs contended that the learned trial Court ought not to ha" , allowed the application, as the parties sought to be arrayec es petitioners are complete strangers to the suit and have I o connection whatsoever with the subject matter thereof. I was further contended that the said documents cannot be tz ken on record in the absence of any corresponding pleadings in the plaint and hence, he prays to dismiss the Civil Revisir,r r Petition. .,.;E&*,-,..., crp_949-7O2O

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs contended that the said documents are relevant for the purpose to prove that there was fraud committed by the petitioners-defendants for making subsequent sales. He a-lso further argued that as the present suit is filed for cancellation of judgment and decree on the ground of fraud. To establish that the fraud committed by the defendants therein, the said documents are necessary. Therefore, the learned trial Court after considering the entire evidence on record rightly allowed the application and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order arrd hence, he prays to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

7. As seen from the record, the respondents- plaintiffs contended that since the said documents were obtained recently, they could not be produced earlier. Except stating that some of the documents could not be filed at the time of institution of the suit and that certain documents were obtdined subsequently, no specific reasons have been assigned. It was further averred that the Court has ample power to receive documents. However, nothing has been pleaded before the learEd tria-l Court explaining why said NNR,I ctp _949_2O2O documents could not be flled earlier or how thei are relevant to the present dispute. Further, the attempt , incorporate parties who have no connection whatsoever witlr the suit a-lso reflects upon the manner in which the plaint arr Ithe petition have been drafted. Learned counsel for the 'espondents- plaintiffs, however, contended that a party s I ould not be made to suffer on account of poor drafting of the plaint or the petltlon.

8. The fact remains that the said do: -rments were filed much prior to framing of the issues. ThorL th there were lapses committed by the respondents-plaintif i , while liling petition, the same may be attributable to thi fault of the counsel appearing for them. Law is settled thal procedure is the handmaid of justice and procedural and tecl nica_l hurdles shall not be hurdle to Courts in rendering sub ; antial justice as held by the Hon'lcle Supreme Court in Suga:r lhi (deadf by Legal Representatives and another v. P.Rajkumar, represented by his Power Agent Imam Olir. t 12O2O1 10 Supreme Court Cases 706 i I J) NNR,I crP_949 _ZO2O --i Merely because a party produces a nr-rmber of documents, the sarne does not automatically make them admissible. Objections as to proof, relevalcy, and other allied .aspects always remain open. Since the documents were frled well before framing of issues, such objections can be appropriately considered at the relevant stage. Therefore, having regard to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ald the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs, and while simultaneously safeguarding the rights of the petitioners-defendants, this Court holds that the said documents can be received on record, notwithstanding the laches in the afhdavit.

9. In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the said documents may be received subject to proof and relevancy, reserving liberty to the petitioners- defendants to raise all permissible objections, including those relating to relevance and admissibility before the learned trial Court.

10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed subject to condition ttrai-tn-e petitione.rs-defendants shall pay i f N NR,,I ctp-949_2O2O costs of Rs.1O,OOO/- (Rupees Ten Thousand oniy) directly payable to the respondents-plaintiffs within orr : month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, far I ng which the revision petition shall stand dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendir l shall stand clo sed. SD/- I\ . OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSI: iTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// -f SECTION OFFICER To '1 . The XV Additional District Judge cum ll Additional Fami ) Judge, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District.(with records if any)

2. One CC to Sri K Venumadhav, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri V Rahunath, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri L Aravind Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies ABK /sa -1= ,- l;-, _!i o(J 0 JAN 2 026 .'!i HIGH COURT DATED: 2311212025 ORDER CRP.No.949 of 2O20 ALLOWING THE CRP *