The High Court · 2025

LE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM K HY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2241 of 2O25 ORDE& Heard Mr. Murli Narayan Bung, learned counsel for the petitioners / defendant Nos.3 and 4; and Mr' I'V' Radhakrishna Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 / plaintiff'

2. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners / defendant Nos.3 and 4 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 17'03'2025, in I.A.No.549 of 2024 in O.S.No.3216 of 2019, passed by the IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court allowed the I.A.No.549 of 2O24 filed by the petitioners / defendant Nos'3 and 4 under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short 'CPC') read with Section 151 of CPC, to receive the original gift deed dated 14.07.L947 '

4. The petitioners herein are the defendant Nos'3 and 4 and respondent herein is the plaintiff before the Trial Court' For the sake of convenience, they are hereinafter referred to with their rank before the Trial Court.

5. Tht-' facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession against the defendants. while filing the suit, along with the plaint the plaintiff had also enclosed a table depicting the list of 37 documents. The defendants entered appearance and filed their Counter and were contestin,J the case on merits. The Triar court after compretion of the pleadings framed issuds and put the matter for trial. The plaintiff ir1 the course of his evidence fired his chief-affidavit and marked c,3rtain documents on his behalf. Subsequently, the matter for plaintiff's cross-examination. In the course of cross- examination, the plaintiff realized that along with the plaint he had was post€rd fileci a Xerox copy of the gift deed dated t4.O7.Lg47.

6. The case of the plaintiff was that he had acquired the suit schedule property on the basis of the unregistered gift deed dated 14.07.t947. He immediately made efforts in obtaining the original document:; of the Xerox copy of the gift deed 14.07.1947 which he had already filed along with the plaint, and immediately moved ( (. I.A.No.549 of 2O24 which is a petition Order VII Rule 14 (3) of CpC read with Section 151 of CpC to receive the original gift deed dated

14.07.7947.

7. Learned counsel for the defendant Nos.3 and 4 opposed the said petition alleging that the petition now moved to receive the original document is nothing but with a mala fi?e intention and with a motive of dragging the proceedings and to avoid the balance of examination. It was further contended that such obligations and fresh documents are not supposed to be filed in the midst of the cross-examination. According to the learned counsel for the defendants Nos.3 and 4, there does not seem to be any justifiable reasons available with the plaintiff to move such a petition at this juncture and it appears that the documents have been mala fidely obtained.

8. It was lastly contended by learned counsel for the defendant Nos.3 and 4 that, in fact, the document which the plaintiff had sought to be brought on record is not the same document which is reflected in Sl.No.11 of the list of documents attached to the plaint. That the two documents being entirely different, the findings given i by the Trial Court to the extent of the plaintiff having already filed with the suit a Xerox copy of the said document is incorrect and that the t',vo documents are entirely different and are also of two different clates. Therefore, factually also the findings of the Trial Court being erroneous, is liable to be interfered with.

9. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal ol' records, if we go by the contentions of the learned counsel fc,r the plaintiff and the findings given by the Trial Court, there seerns to be a photocopy of the document dated 14.07.t947 already filed along with the plaint. It was the original which was not filed. It u,as at the stage of cross-examination that the plaintiff moved thr: present petition intending to bring the original so that it could be F roperly marked to establish his claim.

10. To er specific query put by the Bench to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, he had categorically made a statement that the document which he ought to receive was in fact the original of the document that is referred to at Sl.No.11 of the list of documents and it is cf the same date and same document, and it is that which has been accepted by the Trial Court also, Therefore, there is no infirmity to the said order.

11. Learned counsel for the defendant Nos.3 and 4 meanwhile contended that if the said document which the plaintiff intended to bring on record through the petition under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC happens to be the same as that of document No.11 filed along with the plaint, he may have a strong case. However, he contends that if the said documents are not the same and are two different documents, then the Trial Court cannot be permitted to give due weightage to the said document, nor can it be permitted to be marked.

12. To this contention of the learned counsel for the defendant Nos.3 and 4, the learned counsel for the plaintiff did not have objection.

13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that the I.A. which stood allowed by the Trial Court was only to receive the original documents. That by itself would not make out a case for accepting the admissibility, relevancy anb veracity of the said document. Receiving the document is altogether a different thing, the admissibility and relevancy of the document, and marking of the same also is an altogether different thing.

14. It 'arould be relevant at this juncture to take note of a judgment rendered by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra pradesh in the carse of Sirugudi Adinarayana vs. Bodla Mariammal, wherein in paragraph No.9, it has been held as under: "9..........Thus the court's power to reject the irrelevant and inadnissible documents continues to be there as it was prior to the amendments referred to hereinabove. It is, therefore, clear that the question of admissibitity and relevancy of the docuntents can be gone into by the Court not at the stage of granting leave to the defendant to produce the documents but at the stage of hearing of the suit, which otherwise are required to be filed into Court along with the written statement. The Court, obviously at that stage, cannot go into the admissibility and re,levancy of the documents."

15. In view of the aforesaid judicial precedent and also the factual matrix of the case that stands narrated in the preceding paragraph:s, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the defendant Nos.3 and 4 to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. Nonetheless, so far as the admissibility and relevancy of the said document is concerned, the Trial Court is ' 2oo4 1 ALD z.lo expected to verify the document enclosed along with the suit and the document which has been brought on record by virtue of receiving the original document to be compared with the so-called Xerox copy enclosed along with the plaint' and if there is a substantial difference between the two documents' the Trial Court is expected to take an appropriate decision on the same in the cou rse of evidence.

16. With the aforesaid observations and. directions' the present Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of' L7. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any' shall standclosed.However,thereshallbenoorderastocosts. SD/- S.MALLIKAJUNA RAO A SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/' CTION OFFICER To,

1. The lX Junior Civil judge, City Civil Court at H 2. One CC to SRl. MURLI NARAYAN BUNG Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. lV RADHAKRISHNA MURTHYAdvocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies , Hyderabad District. l PK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:3,1 110t2025 CRP.No.2l241 ot 2025 DISPOSEID OFF 6 ilr.1, :lfHE SIA 2 2 JAt{ 2026 .-.:1 ) o C) ( t