The High Court · 2025

COUNSEI fOr thC Ptrii-tiONErS :SRI. KAMBALAPALLI SRAVAN KIJMAR REDDY Counsel for the Rtx;;rondents: NONE AppEARED The Court macle ther following: ORDER wu-' // THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition No.18O3 of 2O25 ORDER : The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/ delendants herein undcr Ai-ticie 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the common order dated 30'O4'2025 in I A'No' 187 of 2025and'I.A.No.188of2025itto.S.No.Sof2076(forslrort,.the impugned order') passed by ttre Principal Junior Civrl Judge-cum- XIV Additional Judicral Magistrate of First class, R:rrrga Reddy District at HaYatl-rnagar. 2 Heard Mr.Kambalapalli Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners

3. Vide Ltre impugned cornirol.r order, the Trial Court dismissed the above two l.A.s, r'i2.. l.A No i87 of 2A25 in O'S No'5 of 2016 u,hich were filed by petitioners / defendalts herein utnder Order XVIII Rule 17 of the civil Proccdure cocle. 1908 praving the court to re-open evidence of DW'2; and I'A'No' 188 of 2025 in O'S'No'5 of 2016 which was liled b1' the petitioners / defendants herein under Order VIII Rule 1-A of the Civil Procedure Code' 1908 praying the Court to receive the documents mentioned in the appended list ancl to mark the same as exhibits' I I I I i I i I I I I l I i I I I I I PSK,J

4. Per'-r:;i.l r,f tr-re record \volrld show thal thc above suit, viz., O.S.No.l (t l,l 1e,, uras filecl by the respon:k,.t Nr.l (plaintiff) herein rrr':l- ()rd.r vII Rules I ar-icl 2 reacl r'.'itir lir:,.:tion 26 of the civil Prrcc-,rrrrr code, 1908 seeking lor relief of clr-.clar.ation of title and for r.i r,.,' )-tLtal injunction ancl also to rlr.c.l:r (- t te registered documen s rrlr,cl-r are in possession of the cier'enrlarrts in the suit to be nu li .r rri l r.orci .

5. Ther s I . is one which u,as filed as early as in 1,1 e year 2016 a.d as suclr ri rs nrore than 9 -years oicl a,ci pr:ncli,g c onsideration for hear:nq i:r' 1116 Trial court. when trre suit har; re:rched its fag end, the air,.'1 111'6 I.A s were filed bl the petitioncrs 7 defendants herein.

6. Hor'.,:r,'i'. tlre instant Revision js confini-C Lo the impugned order pasr;.rl ir I..\.No.188 of 2a2S h O.S.li..S ol l016 b-v the Trial Corrr:t. -re saicl I.A. is filed b1, the petitj jne -s / defendants herein rl'ii.', :, tratver Lo recerve the ciccr_rmcnll; m:r.tu,tned in the appenderi ;i L rr d to mark the samc as erhibits.

7. Lea. rr:ri ,:rr.. sel for the petitioncrs / de feru.lan , s primarily contendeij llr:. the Trial Court failecj to appreci;rte thr: _elevancy of the docurr.e ttsl the clocuments arc so reler,,arrt thzrt they are enough t., i )i ( \,'cr their contention artd ttieir r.ie,fence: the .*2.,4*:// t;i-.1'",*a: .; .r,<,, /// PSK,J documents in question are material and crucial documents so far as the interest of the petitioncrs / defendalts are conr:erned and also to prove that the respondent No.l / plaintiff's case is not a bona fide and genuine case; the Xerox / photocopies of these documents were alreadY filecl at the time of filing of Written Statement and the certified copies thereof are now being filed only as a replacement of the Xerox copy to prove that these documents are genuine documents; ald therefore, prayed the Court to allou' the Revision.

8. Having heard the contentions put forth by the leanned counsel for the petitioners / det-endants what is necessary at this juncture is to take note of the fact that the suit was fi1ed seeking for declaration of title ard for perpetual injunction in Januar5r, 2016. Thereafter, the petitioners / defendants herein have entered appearance before the Trial Court and submitted their WrittenStatementintheyear20T6itselfmakingtheirstand, defence and contentions clear. The suit was further proceeded by the Trial Court and a-fter framing of issues, evidence on the respondents / defendants' side rn''as closed, and the evidence of respondent No.1 / .plaintiff was closed on O5'O7 '2024 ' In spite of repeated opportunities being granted by the Trial Court to the petitioners / defendants to adduce evidence, they failed to come Page 4 cf ? PSK,J forward z,rrd r Jterefore the 'Irial Court forfeited the right of the petitioners / ,1:fel-rdants to leaci evidence an<l p.ste,i the matter for argume:-Lt :; to 14.C8.2024

9. In llre rnt.rrrcgnum, the petitioners / deft:nclltts herein have filed trr,'o ,.ti.:.. viz., i.A.No 768 of 2024 in O.S.No. t ;tf 2016 under Order IX llulr 9 read u,ith Section 151 of Cti,.,il rr-oiedure Code, 1908 witlr I l)r-avcr to set aside the carlier or-<lc,- peissed by the Trial Cor-rrr t.-,' '.',6.O7.2024 ald tc reopen the cr rcle -rcr: of defendalt No. 1 to 1tr.r' ,c th,: case of the resoondents tit :.r-cirr; and also I.A.No.76!r ,.>'2024 in O.S.No.S of 2016 uncer Orcl,:r VIII Rule 1(A)(3) of ih: t-.ir:ii rrocedure Code, 19O3 prayirLg 1.he Trial Court to receive thrr rr:"-ifie.d copies of documents. \'idc cornmon order dated 23. A..),1'.\4, in I.A.No.768 of 2A24 and i.,\.Nkr.769 of 2024 in O.S.No.5 oi 2()16. :he Trial Court alloqred l.A.i\ o.i/58 of 2024 wrth costs of R'; 1.{)30/ , arrd allo$zed I.A.No.769 o! 20)l lrithout costs and docu,I .)l1s tc be received sutrject to prool, relerrancy and admissibil it.'. lhereaJter, the matter qras posted tc I I 1 1.2024 for cross-exani ].tirn of DW. 1, on r.nhich date agalt tte rrratter stood adjourneci t{) a.I 1.2024. Thereafter, t}re matler ritoo,l adjourned from 18.'. 1 '.),U.1.4 to L7.12.2024 and agaia r.o JL.OI .2024. SubsequerLtll' trc matter stood adjour.ned to '.?.5.(t2.2025 and on

25.O2;2O2:;, ') J/. 1 was absent for rnarkinq the doc uments, as PSK,J such the matter was again posted Lo LL.03.2025. On 11.03.2025, the evidence of DW. I vi,as recorded and Exs.B.l to B. 11 r.l'ere marked and the matter stood further adjourned to 27.03.'2O25, and again to O3.O4.2O25, and from there the matter was again posted to 09 .O4 .2025, and fiom there the mzitter is posted to

10.O4.2025, on which date DW. 1 was cross-examined. Thereafter, as per the earlier common order dated 23.10.2024, ir-r LA.lJo.76B of 2024 and I.A.No.769 ol 2024 in O.S.No.S of 2016 passed by the Trial Court, evidence on the petitioners / defendants' sicie w-as closed, and the malter r,r,as posted for final arguments. It. is at this juncture, the instant I.A.s, viz., l.A.No. 187 ol 2025 and i.A"I.ro.188 of 2025 in O.S.No.S of 2016 were filed by the defendants / petitioners with a- prayer to take certain documents on record. However, vide the irnpugned common orrler, the said I.A. s rvere dismissed by the Trial Court vvhich led to the filing of the instant Revision.

10. A plain reading of the averments in I.A.No. 188 of '2025 tn O.S.No.S of 2016 rvould go to show that no explanation, reason or justification has been given by the petitioners / defendarts showing the cause as to vr4ry these documents could not be brought on record earlier and rvhy these documents were not put for evidence when DW.l r,i,as examined. Another aspect which is l I I I I I Ii .-rrE \' '4E,tryffi . i5:" '-'1 * \ PSK,J reflccted frorr the said I.A. ls that the said appl:cati:n also does not re\real lr,:t th,: documents rvhich the petilion3r)'. i defendants intend to L r-r r g, on record are those u,hich havr' ireer prepared or came ir':to ,1. :rr eo{re subsequent to the liling of tlrc srrit. The said docurncn -s itl e ve ry o1d documents and their t::tiste tce rvas w-ell within th,r kiro.vleCge of the petitioners / defe tclants, and in spite of thai ltrc :e tilioners / defendants did not chose to take steps eariier irr .alrtL ng these docurnents, and no\i. :-t--li, upon these documeo -s rrt he stage of evidence. Yet anotl.re:'rrtitson what is reflected n llre said I.A. is that the petitionen,; / Cefc.ndants have also lnilt:rl l,t :.lto\\ as to why these dor:umcnts i\ r't-c n tt tried to be brouqht crr r<',:,rrd along with earlier I.A.s, viz-. I..o.No 768 of 2024 and l.A.N:.,?'t) af 2024 in O.S.No.5 of 2016 uhic-r u',:re also filed with sirnrliLt .t rryer-for reopening and receiving of the: rlocuments.

11. iiccpi r;l irt vr er.r. all the aforesaid facts rrrid cirr.i mstances of the t:asr. tlri ' (lcrurt is of the considered opitl (rrt titat the instant applitratior'-,. ,'i;r . I.A.No.1BB of 2025 in O.S.No.5 ct' 2016 had been I-rlect by' Li e f etir.ioners 7 defendants onh, ivit.h : r mala hde intelrtiorr tc L-,r otract the case which is othen., ise rn()r.e than nine years oliJ a r,:: has also ripened for hearing fitral].-. ''herefore, in the opir-ricn rr' this Court, the Trial court has r"igh th, r.he said I.A. ' PSK,.' and the same does not warrant interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. L2. According11,, l-he Civil Revision Petition fails and the s4me is dismissed. No costs

13. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. SD'. A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR /iTRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, 1 2 :! ;i": H"i?i,' H:'fi ,"uJl'1 i:t lx 3, sliill One CC to SRI KAMBALAPALLI SRAVAN KUIVIAR REDDY' Advocate ": ""J, ; :v :li' ]ix A d d i t i o n a r toPUCl

3. Two CD CoPies W Pcsd/PSL HIGH CCIIJRT DATED:il(tl116l2025 ORDER CRP.No.180ii of 2025 4:;?; (( 'l i I5 tt]N 20[ t J L) ) \ DISMISSING I-HE CIVIL REVISION PETII-ION ) l7t