The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circ:rrmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in the suit in O.S. No.158 ,tf 2012 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judgel(arimnagar. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sffl. R LAXMINARASIMHA RAO Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI SREENIVASA SARMA The\Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CTVTL REVISION PETITION Nos.2 114 and 544 of2025. 1 coMMON ORDER: . Heard Sri R. Lakshmi Narsimha Rao' learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S' Srinivasa Sharma' learned counsel for the respondents' Perused the record'

2.C.R.P.No.2l14of2025isfrledbythepetitioner/plaintiff challenging the order dated O9'04'2025 in I'A'No'36 of 2025 in O.S.No.158 of 2OI2 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, at Karirnnagar '

3. Likewise, petitioner/plaintiff fried C'R'P'No' 1544 of 2025 challenging the order dated O9'O4'2025 irt I'A'No'12 of 2025 in O.S.No.15 a of 2Ol2 by the very same Court'

4. Petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit in O'S'No'158 of 2Ol2 against the respondents/defendalts seeking declaration of title; to declare the registered Gift Setflement Deed bearing document No.1941 of 1997, dated 29'O3'1997 and sale deed bearing document No.2420 of 2072, dated 19'O4'2012 as null and void. In the said Suit' the plaintiff had frled art application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil / I l .i 'l \l \ 2 Procedure, 19O8 to appoint Advocate Commissioner and the sarne was dismissed by the learned tria_l Court. Tl-rerefore, he has hled a reyision ald this Court disposed o I the said revision directing the trial Court to appoint a;-r Advocate Commissioner. In compliance w.ith the said order, an Advocate Commissioner was,appointed and he has Iiled his report. Without considering the objections fileC by the petitioner/plaintiff, the learned trial Court accepted the said report. Therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff filed one more Interlocutory Application in Order XXVI Rule 9 ot C.p.C to appoint 2"d Advocate Commissioner and the said application was also dismissed. Petitioner filed a revision before this Court and the same was allowed directing the learned trial Court to appoint 2.d Advocate Commissioner. In <::mplialce with the said order, 2nd Advocate Commissioner was appointed. In the said suit, the petitioner/plaintiff examined 5. himself as PW. I and also examined the inclependent witnesses as PW.2. Thereafter, his evidence was closed. He has filed an Interlocutory Application uide I.A.No.299 of 2023 in O.S.No.158 of 2OI2 urrder Section 151 of C.p.C to reopen > E 3 the said suit for further evidence and the said application was dismissed on 06.O6.2023. Challenging the said order, the petitioner herein has frled a revision uide C.R-P.No-2855 of 2023 and uide order dated 14. 11.2023, this Court allowed the said C.R.P setting aside the order dated O4.O7.2O23 In I.A.No.299 of 2023, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- to the District Legal Services Authorit5r, Karimnagar. This Court also directed the plaintiff to conclude the evidence within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. This Court also directed both the parties to cooperate with the trial Court in disposal of the said suit, since it is of theyear 2012.

6. Petitioner had frled another revision r,zde C.R.P.No.20OO of 2024 stating that instead of posting the matter for further evidence of plaintiff, the trial Court has posted the matter for defendarrts' evidence on 12.O3.2024. On consideration of the said facts, uide order dated 1L.O7.2024, this Court disposed of the said revision directing the learned trial Court to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to examine three more witnesses i.e., PWs.3 to 5 frrst and then record the defendants' evidence including cross-examination of DW.3. This Court also directed .l 4 \II.\^ - 1 the petitioner /platntiff to cooperate with the trial Court in disposal of the suit i.e., O.S.No.158 of 201.2, in terms of the order dated 14.1I.2023 in C.R.P.No.2855 of 2023. This Court also observed that the same is the 4th C.R.p. filed before this Court by the petitioner/plaintiff. Therefore, this Court directed the trial Court to make an endeavor to dis,pose of the suit in accordance with law by conducting proceed:ngs on day to day basis.

7. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an Irrterlocutory Application uide I.A.No.l2 of 2O2S under Secti,:n 151 of C.P.C. to reopen the .case for the purpose of sending Ex.B. 1 and Ex.A.21 and Vakalathnama of the petitioner/plaintiff for comparison of signatures and thumb impressions; and also frled I.A'No.36 of 2o2s under Rule r29 of the ci'.I Rures of Practice arrcl Circular Order, lggO r/w Section 1Sl of C.p.C. to call for the records i.e., signatures. and thumb irrpression register from the Joint Sub-registrar, Karimnagar, pertaining to the registered sale deed bearing document N r.4 124 of I974, datid 06.t2.lg74 (Ex.A.21) and registered glft settlement deed bearing document No.1941 of 19,17, dated 29.03.1997 (Ex.B1) on the following grounds: L GF*(- // 5 "The said suit was posted for judgment' In the said suit, defendant No. 1 filed original forged regd. gift settlement deed bearing document No.1941 of 1997, dated 29.03 1997 ' it was marked as Ex.B1, the said document was not executed by his father and petitioner has not attested as witness to the said document, his father has executed regd. sale deed document beairng No.4124 of 1974, dated O6.12.L974 during his lifetime, which is marked as Ex.A21. Therefore, it is essential to prove his claim to summon the Joint Sub-registrar, Karminagar to pro'duce the offrce records i'e', thumb impressions register pertaining to the regd. sale deed bearing document No'1424 of 1974, dated 06.12.1974 from the Joint Sub- registrar, Karimnagar and to sent it for expert's opinion for comparison of signatures and thumb impressions of his deceased father (Nandala Pochalu)."

8. Respondents opposed the said application contending that the petitioner has been hling frted one after the other Interlocutory Applications, therea-fter revisions to protract the litigation. He is not diligent. Despite granting ample opportunity by the learned trial Court as well as this Court' petitioner herein failed to utilise the same and he has frled the aforesaid applications without any basis' 1 6

9. Vide order dated 09.04.2025, the learned trial Court dismissed I.A.No.36 of 2025 holding that petitioner is not diligent in filing the aforesaid applications, and there is a delay in liiing the said petitions. He has filed I.A.No.454 of 2022 to summon the Sub-Registrar, Karimnagar. The said application was dismissed on 29.11.2022 and the said order has attained hnality. Instead of proceeding with t1.r e suit, the petitioner has filed I.A. after I.A. and also rev.sion aJter revlsl0n.

10. Vide separate order dated 09.04.2025, the lerrned trial Court dismissed I.A.No. 12 of 2025 holding that the plaintiff got examined himself as PW. 1, marked Exs.A. 1 to A.25 and he was also cross-examined at length. Defendal: No. 1 got examined herself as DW. 1 and marked Exs.D t to D.6. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/pleLintiff liled severa-l Interlocutory Applications and after the I.As were disposed of, the petitioner has frled Civil Revision petitions before this Court. The learned trial Court also placed reliance on the order dated 11.07.2024 in C.R.p.No.2OOO of 2024. Thus, according to the trial Court despite grant.ing ample opportunity to the petitioner/plaintiff, he did not rrtilize the - same and filed the present applications without mentioning 7 sufficient reasons. Challenging the said orders, the petitioner frled the present Civil Revision Petitions,

11. Sri R. Lakshmi Narsimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the three grounds on which trial Court dismissed the Interlocutory Applications aIe contrary to record. Petitioner is always diligent. Order

29.11.2022 in I.A.No.454 of 2022 has not attained hnality. Filing I.As and revlslons ls the right of the petitioner. Defendant No.2 did not'file any written statement in the suit ald filed counters in the aforesaid I.As. Defendant No.l did not file counters in ttre said I.As. He has also placed reliance on the principle laid down by this Court in Waheeda Begum as. Md.Yakubt and contended that the trial Court has to grant fair oppqrtunity to him. Without considering the said aspect, the learned trial Court dismissed the aforesaid two applications, therefore, he sought to set aside the orders impugned in these Civil Revision Petitions ' zo2t ScC OnLine tS 2222 1 \ 8

12. Whereas, Sri S' Srinivasa Sharma' learned counsel for the respondents would contend that on considering all the grounds raised by both the ptaintiff and defendalts' the trial Court passed order dated O9'04'2025 dismissinS; I'A'Nos'12 and 36 of 2O25' There is no error in it Petitioner has been There is no filing petition after petition and C'R'P after C'R'P error in the imPugned orders' With the said subrnissions' he sought to dismiss the present Civil Revision Petitrons' 13. As discussed supra' the petitioner herein .ras filed the aforesaid suit seeking declaration of title and trr declare tJle registered sale deed bearing document No'41 24 of 1974' dated 06. 12.1974 and registered gift settlement deed bearing document No'1941 of 1997 ' dated 29'03'1997 as null and void. He has filed the Interlocutory Applicalions seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner and alsc 2"d Advocate Commissioner. He has liled C'R'P'No'2855 of 2023' challenging the order passed by the learned -rial Court in LA.No.299 of 2023 hled by him to reopen the suit for further evidence.ThesaidC.R.P.wasdisposedofandI.A.No.2g9of 2023 was allowed subject to payment of costs ol Rs'5'000/-' 9

74. It is relevant to note that petitioner filed I.A.No.454 of 2022 trLder Order XVI RuIe 6 read with Section 151 of C.P.C seeking to summon the Joint Sub-Registrar, Karimnagar, to produce the record pertaining to forged and fabricated registered gift deed bearing document No.l941 of 1997, dated

29.03.1997 and registered sale deed bearing document No.242O of 2OI2 for the purpose of sending the said documents to compare the signatures. Vide order dated 29.11.2022, the learned trial Court dismissed the said application holding that as per the petition averments both the aforesaid documents are public documents as they are defined. If the documents are registered, they become public documents and the party in whose name the property registered, should possess those documents in original. If the documents are proposed to be summoned through Joint Sub- Registrar, Karimnagar, through which documents, the signatures are to be compared and also possession of the original documents. If the original documents are in the possession of respondents/defendants, there should be a procedure under the Indian Evidence Act for production of documents. Therefore, if the petitioner intends to summon the 10 documents, he has to hle petition to summon the documents through defendarts. Without taking steps, he heLs filed the said application after lapse of 1O years, that too at the stage of further evidence of plaintiff. He has not mentioned sufficient/ proper reasons. There is no challenge r-o the sajd oider. It attained finality. Therefore, learned courLsel for the petitioner can't contend that it has not attained hnzdity.

15. As discussed supra, the petitioner has filecl a re'rision uide C.R.P.No.200O of 2024 contending that insteacl of posting the suit for further evidence of plaintiff, the learned triat Court posted the said matter for the defendants' evidence on

12.03.2024. On considering the riva,l submission and order dated 14.11.2023 in C.R.P.No.2855 of 2023, lhis Court disposed of the said C.R.P directing the learned trial Court to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to examine tbree more witnesses i.e., PWs.3 to 5 first and then record the defendants' evidence including cross-examination of DW.3. This Court also directed both the parties to coopera:e with the trial Court and also directed the trial Court to disprose of the said suit, as expeditiously as possible. Thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff has fited the aforesaid I.As. ( ,+a.,l ,! 1-:r..,ii,tt.*. -4r ,/' ,/, 1l

16. As discussed supra, the aforesaid suit frled by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking for declaration of title and also to declare the gift settlement deed and registered sale deed as null and void, contending that defendant No.1 and her husband created gift settlement deed bearing document No.1941 of L997 , dated 29.03.7997 stealthy, while impersonating his father and forging his father's signatures. Therefore, he sought to declare the gift settlement deed bearing document No.1941 of 1997, dated 29.03.1997 and the sale deed bearing, document No.242O of 2012, dated

19.04.2012 as null and void. This Court granted arnple opportunity to the petitioner herein to prove the said claim. He has also filed the aforesaid two I.As and two revisions to appoint l"t Advocate Commissioner and 2"d Advocate Commissioner. The sarne were allowed. This Court also allowed the other two C.R.Ps filed by him.

17. In compliance with the order dated 11.07.2024 in C.R.P.No.2OOO of 2024, the learned trial Court has examined PW.3 - Joint Sub-Registrar, Karimnagar, PW.4 - Sub- Registrar, Karimnagar and PW.S - 2"d Advocate Commissioner. The said depositions of PWs.3 to 5 were t 12 recorded in the month of September,2024. Ex.B.1 is the gift settlement deed and Ex.A.2l is the sale deed Petitioner sought to declare the aforesaid two documents elrs null and void. Thereafter, the petitioner has hled I.A.No.12 of 2024 in the month of December, 2024 and I.A.No.36 of 2Lt)25 in the month of February , 2025 to reopen his eviden:e for the purpose of sending Ex.B. 1 and Ex'A'21, his sigrtatures on vakalathnama for comparison, etc., ald to ca-ll for the records respectively in the manner stated above.

18. As discussed supra, the earlier application filed by the petitioner uide 1.A.No.454 of 2022 with the same r,:lief i.e., to slrmmon the Joint Sub-Registrar, Karimnagal , and to produce the record pertains to forged and fabricated registered gift deed bearing document No.1941 of 1997, dated

29.O3.1997 ald registered sale deed bearing document No.242O of 2072 was dismissed uide order dated :29.11.2022 on merits. Learned tria-l Court assigned specific I'easons for dismissal of the said I.A. Without challenging the order dated

29.11.2022 in i.A.No.454 of 2022, the petitioner again filed I.A.No.36 of 2025 with the same relief. The rnatter was reopened twice. Ample opportunity was given to the -I l3 petitioner. He has not availed the said opportunity alforded by this Court and also by the. learned trial Court. There is no dispute that the petitioner has frled several Interlocutory Applications. The said applications were dismissed on merits. He has filed revisions, the sarne were disposed of in the manner stated supra. He Iiled two I.As. to reopen his evidence and summon the documents. The relief sought in I.A.No.454 of 2022 and the relief sought in I.A.No.36 of 2025 is one and the sarne i.e., to sumrnon the Joint Sub-Registrar, Karimnagar, ald to prodpce the record pertains to forged and fabricated registered gift deed bearing document No.1941 of 7997, dated 29.03.1997 and registered sale deed bearing document No.242O of 2OI2 for the purpose of sending the documents to compare the signatures. The earlier application i.e., I.A.No.454 of 2022 was dismissed on 29.1 I.2022 itself. Without challenging the said order, he has filed I.A.No.36 of 2025 with the same relief. On consideration of the said aspects only, learned trial Court dismissed both I.A.Nos.12 of 2025 and 36 of 2025 19 . It is relevant to note that the petitioner herein has filed complaint under Section 2OO of Cr.p.C. against the a 14 q. respondents aird three others for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 42O,421,424, 465,506 an<l 468 read with Sections 34 and 1O9 of IPC. The sarne was referred to Choppadandi Police Station, who in turn, registere,l a case in Crime No.171 of 2013.The Investigating Officer har; filed final report treating the sarne as civil in nature. Petitioner herein has filed protest petition. The said petition was dirimissed by the learned trial Court. Challenging the same, petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition No.6 1 of 2O 16

20. In the said revision, he liled an applicirtion uide Crl.M.P.No.474 of 2024 to send admitted thumb irnpressions and signatures of the aforesaid registered rlocuemtns executed by his father in favour of respondent No.l to FSL, Hyderabad, for comparison of admitted and dispu:ed thumb impressions ald signatures by expert and opinion. Vide order dated 30.1O.2024, learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, dismissed the said revision petition. 2l . In the said order, there is mention about the petitioner filing Crl.M. P.No.8 1 of 2022 before the Revisional Court under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. seeking revisional Court to direct the /' l5 Sub-Registrar, Karimnagar, to produce office records of the aforesaid registered documents on the ground that the original signatures of the father of the petitioner were available in the said documents and to send the said documents to the expert for comparison of the signatures of the father. Revisional Court dismissed the said revision uide order dated L5.O8.2O22.

22. Challenging the said order, petitioner has filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. urde Crl.P.No.8318 of 2022. Vide order dated 10.06.2024, this Court disposed of the same directing the trial Couit to call for the record by fixing the time, at the earliest. Revisional Court called for the records containing the thumb impressions and sign atures with regard to registered sale deed bearing document No.4l24 of I97 4 , dated 06.12.1974 executed by the petitioner's father in favour of Sripathi Rajamallu and thumb impressions and signatures register with regard to registered gift settlement deed bearing document No. 1941 of 1997, dated 29.O8.1997 executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent No.1. Revisional Court received thumb impression registers of Vol.No.83 of 1974 and Vo1.No.l78 of 1997 frort the Office of the Sub-Registrar, t6 Karimnagar. After receiving those registers' petitioner herein frled petition under Section 39 BSA' 2023 (Section 45 of the Indial Evidence Act) for comparison of thumb inrpressions and signatures of the executants available jn thumb impression registers of Vo1'No'83 of 1974 and Vol'No'178 of L997 bY Forensic ExPert'

23. On con sideration of the aforesaid facts and also law laid down by the Apex Court, learned revisional Court considered the asPect as to whether revisiona'l Court has 1.o order for further enquiry under Section 397 and 398 of Cr.P'C' bY of 2024 and to u'hat extent enquiring into Crl.M'P'No'474 authority can be exercised as revisional Court' Itinally uide order dated 3O.lO -2024 revisional Court disrnissed the revision filed by the petitioner confirming the order dated l4.Og.2016 passed by the learned trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.1339 of 2015 in Crime No' l7l of 2Ol3' pending on the frle of Choppadandi Police Station'

24. Petitioner filed a petition under Section 5128 of BNSS challenging the said order uide Crl'P'No'16435 ctf 2024 and the same is pending. Petitioner suppressed the :;aid facts in ( l7 the affrdavits filed in I.A.No.36 of 2025 and I.A.No.12 of 2025 in O.S.No.158 of 2012.

25. The aforeSaid suit is of the year 2012. Petitioner should be diligent while prosecuting his case, He cal't hle severa-l I.As. for reopen and to summon the said records, and he can't file two I.As. with the same relief. It is relevant to note that the petitioner examined PW.3 - Joint Sub-Registrar, Karimnagar, PW. 4 - Sub - Re gi s trar, Karimnagar.

26. As discussed supra, On consideration of the aforesaid aspects, learned trial Court dismissed both the applications uide separate orders dated 09.04.2025. Both the orders are reasoned and well-founded. Petitioner herein failed to make : I l\t out any ground to interfere with the said orders. 27 . At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the tria,l Court has posted the suit on O3.O7.2O25, on which date, he has liled a memo requesting the trial Court to adjourn the suit till disposal of the present revisions. But without considering the same and without even hearing the plaintiff, learned trial Court posted the suit for judgment to 24.07.2025. In proof of the same, he has frled l8 copy of the said memo ald e-Courts proceedings of the said \ suit.

28. In the light of the same, learned trial Court is directed to hear both petitioner/plaintiff and respondents/delendants on

14.07.2025. Learned counsel for the plaintil and the defendants shall proceed with the arguments arrl cooperate with the learned trial Court for disposal of th e said suit without seeking adjournments.

29. With the above observations, these Cir.il Revision Petitions are dismissed. i(o costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitic,ns, if any, pending in these C.R.Ps. sha1l stand closed //TRUE COPY// I SI)/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR I \ SI:CTION OFFICER I -{ To,

1. The Principal Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar. 2. One CC to Sri R. Laxminarasimha Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Sreenivasa Sarma, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies M. NVB/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:0810712025 .) \\ c< o Ll_ COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.2114 & 1544 OF 2025 e oF T€t ! S .$ v + ,.\: , ..i' DISMISSING THE BOTH CIVIL REVISION T'ETITIONS WITHOUT COST { 7rr{ (