The High Court · 2025

7. Sri. N. Sai Kumar, S/o. Late N. Govind Rajulu tua. 78 yrs., Occ. Retd. Employee, R/o. H.No. B/29, SaiDurgaNilayam, 3rd Cross, Lakshmi Nagar, Bangalore 560 030.

8. Sri. N. Narasimha Rao, S/o. Late N. Govind Rajulu A./a. 65 lrs., Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 6-1-132ft0, Near Skandagiri Temple, Situated at Padma Rao Nagar, Secunderabad 500 061. ...Respondents/(Respondents/Defendants) IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 OS.No.1465 of 2O12 on the file of lAddl. Senior Civil Judge, Medchal Malkajgir District at Malkajgiri, pending disposal of the Revision. Counsel for the Petitione(s):SRl. A L RAJU Counsel for the Respondents: A RAVIKIRAN The Court made the following: ORDER THE TION'BLE SRI JUSTICE'f. VINOD KUMAR .- CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2322 OF 2023 ,' ORDIiR lleard learncd Counsel for petitioners, learned Counsel appearing on bchal{'olthe l" respondent and prerused the rccord

2. 'l'his Civil Revision Petitior.r is directed against the order dated 28.06.2023 passed in I.A. No.284 of 2023 in O.S. No. 1465 of 2012 on [he lile of I Additional Senior Civil .Iudge, Medchal Malkaisiri [)istric t at Malkajgiri. l. l'hc lcr ision pciiticncr- is thc pctilioncr in the urrclcrlvins. rnt.,-:rlocr-rtion lirJrlic:iricin and det'er-rdant in the suit

4. 'l hc i lcspondenL herein IS the respondent in the interlocutor.r'applicarion and plaintiff in the suit vide O.S. No. l46j ol- 20 I 2 fl led lbl parlition and separate possession.

5. [)ctitioncrs herein had filed the undertying inrerlocuror.v application bclbrc tlre (lor-n-r belo,uv under Ordcr \/tU Rule l( A ) o1 2 the Code of Civit Procedurc, I908 (fbr shorl'the Code') to recelve the following documents i. ii. Municipal sauctiou plan datccl l8'01/2001' ('ertilled oopl' ol-gili settlcrlrerlt ilced clatcd 09/01/2003' iii. Ceftified copy o{'ordcr in r\'S No' 137 of 2012' iv. Cefli{ied copy of (lhiel and cross-examination of N' Chandrashekhar in O-S No I504 of2008 ., V. .-'r;fi-.{ ^nnv nf ittdsmcnL in O S. No-1504 of 2008 \.\r(rtr!e \vt -'

6. Petitioners by the underlying interlocutory application contendecl that thc aloresaicl Ll()cLlnlents are r ital and important documents li-'r thc purposc ol':tcl]ttclication o1'thc subject suit' 'the said iutcrlocr:torr applicarion lilcd by the petltloners

7. herein was opposed by tlic l'' rcspondeLrt/plainti ff

8. The Court belorv b,v corrsidering ttre respective contentions urged had disrnissed the undcrlving intcrlocutory application and aggrieved b1' the samc. the prcscnt t cv'ision is lllcd' Petiti<>ners contcnd Lhat their tnothcr cxecuted gift deed in

9. their favour vide documeut No. ll-lilO0-l datecl 09 01 '2023 arrdlhe 3 petitioners by accepting the gift have taken physical possession of the suit schedule property and demolished the old slructure therein and applied to rhc Municipality for sanction of permission for Court, whic'h was accorded by the concemed Municipality vide file No.G2l95/2003.

10. It is the lurther case of the petitioners that their mother after executing the gili dced, in collusion with respondent No.l herein had pre ('crlcd pctirion trclbre the Sub-Registrar, Malkajgiri cancel thc gili dccd and rhe Sub-Registrar cancelled the same. The said proccedings oi the Sub-Registrar were challenged by filing a suit for dcclaration numbered as O.S. No.485 of 2003 on the file of I Additional Scnior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy and the same is pending I l. lt is also tltc lLrrthcr conte nlion of the petitioner that his rnothcr also lilcd irr.jurrction suit againsl him vide O.S. No. 1504 of 2008 which cnded in disntissal. '[-hereafter on an appeal being pleferred virle A.S. No.il7 ol'2012, the said appeal was parlly allowed. -I'hus, t[.rc copies of thc orders in A.S. No.337 of 2012 and copy of-the judgrnent in O.S. No.l504 of 2008,certified copy of 4 chief ar-rd cross-cxnnr irrat io n ol one Sri \. ('handrashcl<har irr O.S. No.1504 of 2008. cerlified copy o{' gi[i scttlcment deed dated

09.01.2003 executed in his f'avour by his latc r.nother and also the Municipal sanction plan dated 1 8.03.2003 are necessary for adjudication of the suit filed by the respondents hercin and as such the Court below ought not to have dismisscd thc underlying application.

12. Per c'ontra, iearneci Counsei appcarirrg on behaii of respondents would submit that in the aflldavit trlcd in support of the interlocutory application by thc pctitioncls herein, no reasons are mentioned as to rvhy thc petitioncrs cor-rld t-tclt file these documents at an earlier point oI timc ci.cn though the said documents pertain to an carlicl n,:rlod

13. It is also conl-cndecl on Lrettall' ci I Lirc rcsi--'onderrts that insofar as the claim of the petitioners ol'pendency'o1'O.S. No.485 of 2003 is concemed, it was abated on 25.10.202-i and I.A. No.1282 of 2007 ltled therein was disurisscd on 30.0,1.10 10. 5

14. I[ is also contended that the petitioner herein thereafter filed condonation of delay of 183 I days vide I.A. No.1374 of 2011 in filing the petition for resroring the suit vide O.S. No.4g5 of 2003 which also ended in dismissal on 18.04.2013 and thus O.S. No.485 of 2003 stands dismissed as of date and the same is not pending.

15. 'l'hus, on behal{'ol'thc respondents it is contended that since the challenge n-rade by the petitioner herein to the cancellation of the gift deed ended in dismissal, the petitioner cannot lay any claim to the suit schedule subject property

16. It is also contcndcd on behatl of the respondents that the petitioner hercin hacl lilcd his u riLrcn statement ir-i the suit in Decernbe r, l0ll; r ltiLc Lhc unrle rir inq intcrlocutory application is filed on 14. I 1.1022 i.c.. altcl a decadc whcn the suit is coming up for his evidence

17. It is also conrended on bchalf of the respondents that by the underlying interlocurorv application. thc petitioner is seeking to receive ce(iticd ct-rpy ol'chiet ancl cross-e xamination of Sri N. Chandrashckhar. the l ' iirlc'rrrl.rrri ir tirr sr-rit riho is a living person 6 and as such his deposition given in another case caunot be received. Contending as above, the respondent seeks for dismissal of the revision petition. i8. I have taken note of the respective conLentions urgcd.

19. At the outset it is to be noted that the rcsponderrt No. I hetein has filed the subj ect suit lor partition and sepalat,-- possession wherein the petiLioner No.l herein is anayed as delendant No'8' The respondent No.1/plaintilf herein in the albresaid suit had claimed that hcr mothcr was absolutc ovrtlct- ol'propct't\ in S tln''c1' No.714 (old 668) admeasut.ir.rg -i0-i sclualc ratils a[ \'.irkatcshrvara Nagar, Malkajgiri, lbnga l{cddy District. had crcctrte d a rvi ll dated

20.12.2003, whereunder, she has beclueathcd l-.i0 stluarc vards to defendant No.1 and 35 square yards each to de lertdrrnl Nos.2 to 5 and another 35 square yards in favoui o[' thc respondcnl" No.1/plaintil'f.

20. It is the fur.ther casc of ttrr-. rcsponclcnl hc|cin as Plaintill'that since, defendant Nos. 1 to -5 did not collic lbrrvard lirl partition as per the will deed executed by her mother', shc had fl lccl the sr-rb-iect 7 suit. The defendant No.S had fited written statement in the aforesaid suit which was also adopted by respondent Nos.7 and 10. Petitioncr/de f'cndanl No.8 bv his r.r,rittcn statcrnent contended that the mother of the respondent No. l/plaintiff and the petitioners/defendants herein had executed gift deed dated

09.01.2003, upon which he had demolished the old structure and constructed a new building

21. It is also contended by thc petitioner/dclendant that on his mother canccling the gilt decd, hc irtttl tlicd a sLrit O.S. No.485 of 2003 as shc had no light to cancci Lirc saicl giii-

22. The subject suit out ol n,hich thc present rcvision arises 1s coming up for evidence ol the petitioncr/de fendant No.8 herein. The petitioner in the affidavit llled in suppon ol the underlying application for fiting additional docurucnt h:rcl only' stated that his mother has execulcd a gili dccd. arrd hc br ..rcc.ptins the gifl, had taken physical posscssion and clcrriolistred thc olcl structurc therein; and that he had obtained perrrission fr-orn the concemed Municipality for making a new Court thcrcin 8

23. 1'he petitioner in the aliidavit ll led in supporr o1- the ur.rderlying interlocutoty applicatior.r has also clairrcd thet rhd suit vide O.S. No.485 of 2003 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy filed by him to declare the cancellation of gift deed is pending and it is for the said reason d1g do6xlnents mentioned in the underlying application arc important docur.ncnts in t[.re plcsent suit and sought leave ol thc Cor-u1 to lllc the SaltlC under Order VIII Rule lA CPC

24. Since, the petitioner had filed the underlying application invoking the provisions under Order VIII Rulc 1A CpC, scckine leavc to fite the mentioned documents now. r,hich 1y3;g p61 lilcd along with his written statement fited in [)ccenrbcr. ]0 Il, ir \\ ()ulcl be apprcpliate to extract l{ule 1A ol'Orde r Vlll ( P( u [ic]r L'citcls as under: "Daty of deJendant to produce documents upon t,ltich \\,hcre rhc relief is claimed or relied upon by him:- i) def'cndant bases his defence upon a doctrment or rclies rrpon an-v document in his possession or po\\,er. in suppofl of his delence or claim for set olf or counter clairrr- hc shall cntcr suoh document in a Iist, and shail producc it in ('ourl rrhcu tlrc u'riLten statement is pl.cscntc.l br hirtr and shtrll. at (hc santi. 9 timc, dclivcr the document and a copl'thcrcol', Lo be tiled with the written statement. (2) Where any such document is not in the posscssion or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3). A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule. but. is nor so produccd sha[[ not, without the leave of the Court. hc reccivcd in er idcncc on his bchall'at (hc hcaling of tlre suir. (4). Noting in this rule shatl apply. ro docume nrs (a) produced for the cross-examination ol rhc plaintifls witnesses; or (b) handed over to a witness merely to reticsh his nremorl,_

25. From a reading of the aforesaid rule, it u.ould be clear that a document which ought to have been produccd inro ( ourr where the written statement is prcsentcd, can hc rcccir crl in cl icicncc only by obtaining leave of the Court. Adrnittcdlv tlie docunrcnts were not produced into Court by det-endant a[ rhe tirne of titing of the written statement or thereafter and are being ti led only rvhen the subject suit is coming for his cvidence. Thus. tlre rcspondent herein as plaintiff did not have thc c hancei opportun ir\ to corltrovert them whiB giving hcr chicl'-crlurinarion Irtrr.rtrcr. i1' onlr the 10 pctilioner herein had flled these docutnents belore thc colnmencement of evidence of the respondent AS P.W-1. the respondent could havc filed documer-rts in support ol her casc [o meet the docurnents now sought to be filcd by the petitioner. In addition the petitioner did not assign any reason as to why he could not file these documents along with written statement or thereaftcr' or for that matter no mention being made in the written statelncnt filed by him. l his aspect of the matter gains itnportance since. the pctitioner by' the affidavit filed in suppott o1' thc underlf ing application hacl clairncd pendency of suit O.S. No.485 o1 1001. r.r'hile thc said suit stood dismissed long back. '['hus, the claini o1 thc pctitioncr in thc underlying application of the peudcucv t', f thc suit fbr rvhich he intended to file additional documents clairnirrs that he having obtained building permission fiorr.r tl.re concerned Vlunicipal authority on the basis of the gili scttlcrnctrt dccd e:lcculccl bv hi-c dcccased mother are important docut-nct.tt cottld tlot bc a lt'cctivc [y mcct by the respondent. 1,L

26. This Court in similar circumstances in Pallepati Narsaioh v. P. Satyanarayanat hadheld as under: "Cases like ttre instant case. wherc thc cvidcnce of the respondent/plaintiff is complctcd when tl.rc applicatit'li is fited by the respondents/defbndants to mark new' documents which were not filed along with the written statement, would cause grave prejudice to the petitioners because they do not have opportunit_r to controvert them. If they had known about these docurnents, they would have also filed docurnents in support of their case to meet the documents now sought to be produced by thc rcspondents." 21 . Further, this Court in Pallepmi Narsaiah (case. supra), and had also refer to the decision of thc erstwhile t tigh Courr in the casc of Ravi Sntish v. Edah Durga Prusurl rvhercin no fCASONS have been stated for not furnishing/t-ailurc to ille docuntenrs along u,ith the written statement earlier, the sarte cannor be rc'ceived at a later date unless sufficient cause is shown rvherebv the del-endant was prevented by circumstances bevond h i s control to 1-r le the documcnts along with wlitten statetncnt 2tl. In thc facts of the plescnr casc as norcLi ab()\0, thc pctitioner in thc altrdavit filed in support ol thc Lrrrdcrlving inrellocutor! 'ttanu/ttlozzqlzotg ' rtrnuu/np/oz:o/2009 = 2oo9(3)ALT 236 1) application did not nlention any reason for hir-n not being able to file these docurnents along rvith the written statement.

29. [t is for the said reason, the Court below having regard to the provisions under Oldcr VIII Rule 1A CPC (3 CPC) had noted that the said documcuts sought to bc filed under thc intcllocutory application carlnot bc rcceived fbr non-assigning any rcason 1br the delay irr liling thcnr along with written statement.

30. Fufther, the Courl below also noted that insofar as thc tiling ol thc chiel- and cross-examination of defendant No.l in the suit rizlc O.S. No. l-504 ot' 1008 also cannot bc taken on rccord as dcf'endant \o.l is a Iiving pcrson and Section 33 of Evidcncc Act c lcat'1., Irlltcr's.ll1 I it I hltttto tn malking the deposition of-livinlr person ;n iL si.lhse.iucitt. ltrocccding i I. fhe Court below by considering the scope ol Order \/l[[ Rule- ih CP(l anci thc purport of Section 33 of Evidence Act had disrlisscd thc intcrlocutory application filed by the petitionrr. ), lhe saicl lindings rccorclcd by the Court belorry on thc basis ol'thc 1-rlor isiorrs ol'thc ('odc and the r\ct in the considcred vieu o1'

1.3 this Court cannot be said as sufferine liom illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court, more particularly when the petitioner had clairned of pendency ot.O.S, No.485 ot200j which initiatly stood abated and thereaftcr l.As filed .sceking restoration of the said suit having been disrnissed in the year 2013 itself. Thus, the conduct of the petitioner in seeking leave of the Court to file these documents at the stage ofevidence cannot be said as bonafide or he having been prevenbd by circurnstances beyond his control for the Court to accept his submission. ii. 'lhus, this Court is ol, tire v,icr.r rhat thc prcsent Revision ['etition assailing the order is devoid of.nrcrir and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous peritions pcnding il.any stand closed. Sd/. L. LAKSHMI BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEcTSFo--FFIcER The I Senior Civil Judge, Medchal,Malkajgiri district at Matkajgiri To, .1. 2 One CC to SRl. A L RAJU Advocate IOPUC] -1. One CC to SRl. A RAV|K|RAN Advocate {OpUCl .4. Two CD Copies IUPSL tff_ HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 J o (.) t o =.;1.\ \r' '/(, ( 11 tlJB 2u5 >1 o o 4-.s- ^4!cF \t:1^ - ORDER CRP.No.2322 of 2023 DISMISSING THE C.R.P ,t r 'l:'r ,.1- l'' r t:\ .r i(