The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents: Smt. S.A.V. RATHNAM The Court made the following: ORDER ' "t :.o# THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI CIVIL REVISI ON PETITION No.1617 of 2022 ORDER: l'his Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner defendant aggrieved by the docket order dated 17.08.2021 passed in I.A.No. 1217 ol 2021 in O.S.No. 164 of 2006 by the learned Junior Civit Judge, Huzurabad in allowing the petition filect by the plaintill for receiving certain docurnents

2. The respondent fited the suit O.S.No.164 of 2006 seeking the rclief of pemanent injunction againsr the petitioner - defendant herein befbre the Junior Civil Judge at Huzurabad. The said suit was {ismissed by the trial courl on

16.02.2013. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the responclent - plaintifr preltrred A.S.No.8 of 2011. 'fhc said appeal was heard by the lcarned Senior civil Judge at fluzurabad and vide judgment dated 01.02.2019 allor.ved the appeal setting aside the order of the trial court and remanded the rnatter back for lresh trial within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of records. After the rnatter was remanded, the plaintiff filed I.A.No. l2 1 7 oI'2021 under Section l5l ol cPC to receivc cedain docr.rments i.e. ccrtificd copics of pahanies for the years 2005-2011, No Due certificate given by rhe co-pcrative Society, Etkathurlhy dated 11.08.2006, certified copy of FIR, certified copy of conrplaint, certified copy of chafge shect, certifiecl copy o1 the statements of 2 i Dr.cRRJ, CRP No.l6l7 of 2022 LWs. I to 4, the true copy of the statement of the plaintiff, the certified copy of the letter issued by the co-operative Executive officer, Elkathurthy, cerlified copy of memo issued by the Naib Tahsildar, Elkathurthy.

3. The plaintiff filed an affidavit along with the said petition stating that he filed the above documents before the Lower Appellate court i.e. the Senior civil Judge court at Huzurabad itself. All the said documents were public documents, which were relevant to prove his ctaim. The suit was posted for the evidence of the official witnesses i.e. rhe Tahsitdar, Elkathu(hy and the co- operative Executive officer, Elkathufthy, as per the direction of the Lower Appellate court, as such prayed to receive and mark the same as exhibits in the case.

4. The defendant filed counter in the said I.A. contending that the said documents were not filed during the course of trial. They were brought into existence for the first time in the appeal by way of filing LA.No.445 of 2013 under order XLI Rule 27 of cpc. After due enquiry, the Lower Appellate courl dismissed the petition, on which the petitioner preferred c.R.p.No.320g of 20 I 5. The High court directed the Lower Appellate court to hear and decide I.A.No.445 of 2013 along with the main appeal and to pass orders in accordance with law. The Lower Appellate court remanded the suit to the court for fresh trial with a direction to examine the Tahsildar, Elkathurthy in respect of the I I ,effi*-y h.*.eFf 3 DT.GRRJ, CRP No.1617 of 2022 - issue of pahani for rhe year 2oo4-05 and also the authorities of LSCS, Elkathurthy to ascertain whether the respondent - defendant deposited the remaining sale consideration in the name of his son with the society. As per the directions ol the Appellate court, the court issued summons to the Tahsildar, Elkathurlhy and Manager, LSCS, Elkathurthy. The suit was remanded to the courl with a limited power to examine the above witnesses. The petitioner had no right to mark the documents as exhibits, which were not allowed by the Appellate Courl and sought for dismissal of the petition.

5. The trial coun observing that the matter was remanded to conduct fresh [rial to kr-rorv the true f-acts of the case and as no prejudice would be causecl to the respondent, allorved the same subject to pro<if, relevancy and admissibitity of the documents.

6. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned principal Junior civil Judge, Huzurabad dated 17.08.2021 in l.A.No.12l7 of 2021 in o.s.No.164 of 2006, the del-er.rdant preferred this revision.

7. Heard Sri K.Buchi Babu, leamed counsel for the revision petitioner - defendant and Srnt.S.A.v.Rathnam, reamred counsel fbr the respondent - plaintiff. 4 Dr-GRRJ, CR? No.1617 of 2022

8. Leamed counsel for the petitioner contended that the said documents were not filed during the course of trial. The respondent in collusion witl.r the revenue authorities and LSCS, Elkathurthy, created and brought into existence the said documents for the first time in the appeal and filed I.A.No.4 45 of 2013. The Lower Appellate court after due enquiry dismissed the petition. The High court in C.R.P.No.3208 of 2015 directed the Lower Appellate couft to hear and decide the I.A. along with the main appeal and to pass orders in accordance with law. But the said I.A. was not disposed of by the Lower Appeltate court. All the documents were created and brought into existence as an after thought without being in physical possession of the property and prayed to set aside the docket order dated I 7.08.202 1 passed in I.A.No. I 2 1 7 of 2021 in o.S.No. 1 64 of

9. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the matter was remanded by the Lower Appellate court to conduct lresh trial, as such, the respondent has every opporlunity to adduce evidence. No order was passed in order XLI Rule 27 petition in A.S.No.g of 2013 by the Lower Appellate court. The petitioner was not opposing examining the MRO as well as the Secretary, LSCS, but without marking the documents, the witnesses could not depose about thern. There was no illegality in the order passed by the trial court in receiving the documents and prayed to dismiss the revision. t :;.ir' ,/

10. Perused the record. 5 Dt.GRRJ, CRP No.l6l7 o12022 1l The record would disclose that the suit was filed by the respondent - plaintilf seeking perpetual injunction against the defendant contending that he was the owner of Ac.1-10 guntas in Surwey No.436. The defendant was his neighboring land owner and intended to purchase the said propefty and entered into an agreement of sale for Rs.88,000/-, but only paid part of the sale consideration of Rs.53,000/-. He failed to pay the balance sale consideration, but with an intention to cause wrongful loss to him, was interfering with his possession and enjoytnent of the suit scheduie property. l2 The defendant admitted that the plaintiff was the owner of the property and that he approached the plaintiff for purchase of the suit land and the price for Ac. l-10 guntas was fixed at Rs.88,000/- and he paid Rs.53,000/-, but contended that it was the plaintiff, who was avoiding to receive the balance sale consideration. He agreed to pay the debts on the suit land and paid Rs.4,050/- towards land revenue arrears and deposited Rs.24,000/- in the account ol'the plaintiff in PACCS Bank for repayment of mortgage loan amount. He rvas ready to pay the balance amount and to register the sale deed. He also approached the elders, but the plaintiff evaded. As such, he got issued a legal notice showing his readiness, having coming to know that the plaintiff addressed a letter to the village secretary to record his possession and denied 6 DT.GRRJ, CRP No.l617 of 2022 the execution of registered sare deed. The defendant contended that he was in possession and enjoyment of the property under the sare agreement dated 26'05 '2003 and his name was also recorded in the pahani for the year 2oo3-04.

13. The trial court on considering that the defendant was in possession of the propefty by the date of filingthe suit, decreed the suit in his favor. The Lower Appellate court observed that the defendant was craiming to be the owner of the property without paying the entire sale consideration to the ptaintiff. Mere entries in the pahanies would not co,fer any titre. without acquiring any right over the entire suit schedule propefty, the defendant could not be deerned to be the owner and possessor of the suit propefty. Though the MRo stated that he made spot enquiry before recording the posses'sion in favor of the defendant, but failed to mention the names of the persons with whom he enquired at the spot and not stated as to whose statements he has recorded and that it was necessary to decide as to how and who entered the name of the defendant in the pahanies without any mutation proceedings and that it was also necessary to decide whether the defendant had deposited the remaining sale consideration in the account of the son of the plaintiff, as such the MRo and the LSCS authorities need to be examined, remanded the matter to the trial court. But while remanding the matter, the Lower Appellate Court i.e. the leamed Senior civil Judge, Huzurabad directed the principal Junior civil Judge, Huzurabad to conduct fresh trial ,.,:tE€:=Ez 1 DT.GRRJ, CRP No.1617 oI2022

14. when the marter was remanded to the trial court to conduct fresh trial, it was open to the parties to adduce evidence and to mark the documents relevant to the case in accordance with law.

15. The contention of the reamed counsel for the revision petitioner - delendant that the matter was remanded to the trial court only on limited grounds, is not correct, as the order of the Lower Appellate court would not specift that the matter was remanded to the trial court only on the limited grounds. The respondent - plaintiff fited the above relerred documents before the Lower Appellare couft irself. when rhe said I.A. filed by the respondenr - plaintiff before the Lower Appellate court was dismissed and the matter was carried in revision, this court directed the Lower Appellate court to decide the said application along with the appeat. But without deciding the said application, the Lower Appellate couft remanded the matter to the trial couft to conduct fresh trial. As such, it was open for the parties to agitate the matter before the trial court afresh. 'lhe contention of the leamed counsel for the revision petitioner was that the pahanies were pertaining to the dates subsequent to the filing of the suit, as such the same were not relevant.

16. It was for the trial couft to decide whether the above documents are relevant or not. As the documents were received by the trial court subject to proof, reievancy and admissibility, this court does not find any illegality in the 8 DT.GRRJ, CRP No.l617 oI2022 order of the trial court in receiving the same. As this revision is filed challenging the docket order dated 17.08.2021 of the trial court for receiving the said documents subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility, only on the ground that the Lower Appellate court had remanded the matter to the trial courl only for examining the witnesses, but not for marking the documents, this court clarifies that as the Lower Appellate court remanded the matter for fresh trial, the documents also can be received in support of the contentions of both the parties subject to their proof, relevancy and admissibility

17. ln the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed contirming the docket order dated 17.08.2021 passed in I.A.No.l217 of 20Zl in I.A.No.164 of 2006 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, in receiving the docurnents. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. A,SREENIVASA REDDY ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Junior Civil Judge, at Huzurabad. 2. One CC to SRl. K BUCHI BABU Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Smt. S A V RATNAM Advocate [OPUC] 4, TWO CD COPIES N/ GSA/gh HIGH COURT DATED:0910612025 I I I ORDER CRP.No.1617 ot 2022 DISMISSING OF THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS 3 1 ttE S i/ rG i + c 1{ tlJE il[t t o€.s-p 4Tt:gr, t { x

1.l'