The High Court · 2025

... Petitioner/Petitioner (Defendants) AND Sammeta Narasaiah, aged about 70 years, S/o. Vijayagiri, R/o.H.No.2-67, Ellanthakunta (Village) ( Mandal), Karimnagar ... RespondenURespondent (Plaintiff) lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 all further proceedings in C.M.A.No.6 of 2020 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad as well as in O.S.No.98 of 2018 on the file of Principle Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. M.N. Narasimha Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: None Appeared Civil Revision Petition No.2078 of 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 11-04-2025 in LA.No.402 of 2022 in C.M.A.No.7 of 2O2O on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Huzurabad. Between: Kotanguri Rama Krishna Reddy, aged about 59 years, S/o. Late Janardhan Reddy, Ellandakunta Village and Mandal, Karimnagar Distr;ct. ...Petitioner AND Sammeta Laxmi, aged about 58 years, W/o. Veera Swamy, R/o.H.No.2-77, Ellandakunta (Village) (Mandal), Karimnagar. ...Respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition underSection 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 all further proceedings in C.M.A.No.7 of 2020 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad as well as in O.S.No.99 of 2018 of the file of Principle Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. M.N. Narasimha Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: None Appeared The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER -"'a THT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUXARAIVIJI CTVIL ITTTEITOIfl PETITION Nos.1886 and oF 20.25 N ORDER: These Civil Revision Petitions have been instituted challenging the orders dated 1I.O4.2O25 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, in I.A' Nos. 400 and 4O2 of 2022 in C.M.A. Nos- 6 and 7 of 2O2O-

2. Heard Mr. N.Narsimha Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

3. In spite of due service of notice, none appeared for the respondent.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the applications filed before the appellate Court under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to bring certain documents on record, were rejected without due and proper consideration.

5.1. tearned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents sought to be produced pertain to (i) the Enquiry 2 Report of the District Registrar, Karimnagar-, and (ii) the letter of the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and stamps issued pursuant to G.o.Ms.No.141 dated L6.L2.2o2o. It is contended that these documents carne into the possession of the petitioner only after the disposal of the interlocutory applications by the trial Court, and during the pendency of the appeal on 31.01 .2021.

5.2. counse[ further argues that the documents are highly relevant, inasmuch as they demonstrate that the affidavit allegedly executed by the parties before the notar5r was not genuine and suffered from serious infirmities. Based on the complaint lodged, even the license of the concerned notary was subsequently terminated by the competent authority. This fact, according to the petitioner, goes to the root of the matter, as it nullifies the very basrs of the entries made by the revenue authorities on the strength of such affidavit.

5.3. It is further urged that the trial court, w,hile granting temporary iniunction, had placed reliance on documents issued by the revenue authorities, which themselves were -) founded upon the disputed affidavit. Therefore, the production of these documents before the appellate Court is essential to ensure that the genuineness and validity of the affidavit, and consequently the revenue entries, are properly adjudicated.

5.4. In such circumstances, it is contended that the appellate Court ought to have received the documents, at least subject to proof and relevancy, so that both sides would have a fair opportunity to contest the matter on merits. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for interference with the impugned order.

6. I have perused the materials on record.

7. The petitioner contends that by placing the additional documents on record, the foundation for the revenue entries and the issuance of consequential documents would be established, and the very basis for determining possession could thereby be demonstrated. Such aspects can be effectively examined only upon the receipt and consideration . 4 of these clocuments by the appellate Court. prima facie, this pleading appears to be acceptable.

8. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner came into possession of the documents only after the interlocutory order, i.e., the grant of temporar5r injunction by the trial Court on 3l.OL.2O2|, the explanation that the petitioner was unable to produce them at the earlier stage appea_rs convincing. In these circumstances, the reception of the documents becomes necessa_ry in the interest of justice, so that the issue may be adjudicated comprehensively on its merits.

9. It is a well-settled principle under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil procedure, 190g, that additional evidence may be admitted at the appellate stage if (i) the party seeking to adduce it was unable to produce it despite due diligence before the tr:ial Court, or (ii) the appellate Court requires such evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment effectively. /

10. The Honble Supreme Court, in Union of Ind.ia u. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) g SCC 14g, has reiterated that 5 additional evidence can be permitted where it is necessar5l for a just and fair adjudication, subject to proof and relevancy. The present case, in which documents direcfly a-ffect the validity of the revenue entries forming the basis of the trial Court's decision, clearly satisfies these parameters.

11. In view of the above discussion, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. The impugned interlocutory order is set aside, and the documents are directed to be received on file, subject to proof and relevancy. The appellate Court shall thereafter consider the matter on merits in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/. A.SREENIVASA REDDY s ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Huzurabad. 2. One CC to Sri M.N. Narasimha Redd 3. Two CD CoPies y, Advocate [OPUC] Kam/PSL qk HIGH COURT DATED:21 10812025 COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.1886 and 2078 ot 2025 i I -t |iE l'i /.,1 , .i: o(i !'1 tl 2 trl zQl /, ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS ( s-, \r- ,\ \\') t .:)- .) \