High Court · 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 grant permissiou to the petitioner No.2 to rePresent other petitioners as their powcr of attorney holder. Counsel for the ['etitioncrs: Sri D.faipal Reddy. Counscl for the Respondent: Sri Yogesh Kumar Heroor 'I ht'Court made the fo[[ovr.,ing: ORDER i/ i/ / THE HONOURABLE SMT JI'STICE K. SUJANA CwIL RE\IISION PETITION No.2599 of 2o24 ORAL ORDER: This revision petition is hled challenging the docket order dated O3.O7.2024 passed in I.A.No.1206 of 2023 in O.S.No.373 of 2022 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The petitioncrs herein are defendants and the respondent herein is ptaintiff in O.S.No.373 of 2022. In th,e said suit, the petitioners/defcndants filed I.A.No.1206 of 2023 under Order XII Ru'le 8, read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short 'CPC') seeking to direct the respondent/ plaintiff to prr:duce the original documents. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the said I.A. Aggrieved thcreby, this revision petition is hled.

3. Heard Sri D.Jaipal Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, and Sri Yogesh Kumar, learned counsel 2 appearing on behalf of Smt. Nandini Sriram, learned counsel for respondent 4 . [rarned counsel for petitioners submitted that the trial Court erred in dismissing I.A.No. 1206 of 2O23, which was filed seeking to direct the respondent to file the original documents related to the suit schedule properties to prevent the mrsuse of the said documents. He contended that the trial Court had misconstrued the prayer of petitioners, assuming that they sought possession of the documents, r,r,hereas, thcy only sought for ttte documents to be kept in [he safe custody ot the trial Court. He lamented that pending trial, there is possibility of documents being misused, being unfounded of any record. He reiterated that the prayer of petitioners was never to have the documents handed over to them, but rather to hand over the same before the trial Court, so as to prevent any future complications. Therefore, prayed this Cor.rrt to allow the revision petition, setting aside the docket order dated O3.O7.2024 passed in I.A.No.12O6 of 2023 in O.S.No.373 ot 2022. 3

5. On the other hand, the Iearned counsel appearing for respondent, vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners, stating that the it is admitted fact that the original sale deeds are in the possession of respondent, and that he has paid the entire sale consideration and purchased the properties in the names of petitioners, and that in the year 2012, Ll:.e petitioncrs gave General Power of Attorney (GPA) to the respondent to register the sale deeds, which were later cancelled in the year 20 14. He contended that the respondent has no intention of usurping the property and that the petitioners have no right over the propert5r since they did not pay any sale consideration, and being of limited ltnancial means, they lack the capacity to do so. Therefore, while advocating that there are no irregularities and infirmities in the impugned docket order, he prayed this Court to dismiss the revision petition.

6. Having regard to rival submissions made, and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the limited prayer ol petitioners is to direct the respondent to produce the documents which are in his. custody, alleging i l I I I I 4 lhat the said documents are in their name but not in his custody, and that being so, the said documents be produced before the trial Court, so as [o prevent its misuse as there can be every possibility of him alienating into the suit schedule property by forging signatures of petitioners, whereas, it is the specific stand of respondent that the object of Order XII Rule 8 of CPC is to bring on record the documents that are in possession of other party, subject to its necessity to adjudicate the suit, and on the contrary, as per the facts of the case on hand, the petitioners are seeking direction to produce the documents before the trial Court, merely on the basis of assumptions and apprehensions. Further, though the documents are in possession of the respondent, he has already admitted the fact that he has paid the salc consideration o[ suit schedule property and the same is in the names of petitioners, as such, there are no valid grounds to believe that i1e will misuse the contents of the saicl documents and commit forgery. That being so, this Court is of the hrm view that there are no irregularities or infirmities in the docket order dated O3.O7.2024 passed in I.A.No. 1206 of 2023 in O.S.No.373 of 2022, warranting 5 interference of this Court. There are no merits in this revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed 7 . Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2022, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possibie. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, sha11 aiso stand closed. /IIRUECOPY// Sd/. K. AMMAJI ISTANT REGISTRAR AS To, SECTTON 1. The VI Addirional Districr & Sessions Ju<Ige-cum-Vl Aclditional Me Sessions Judge-c um-Family Court, Prashanth Nagar, Ranga Reddy. 2. One 3. One 4. Two CC to Sri D .Jaipal Reddy, Advocate IOPUC CC to Sri Yogesh Kumar Heroor, Advocate loPUCl ICK/ptp CD Copies.(r OFFICER tropolitan HIGI{ COURT DATED:18/02/2O25 ORDER CRI'.No.2599 of 2024 I I I i i 1l { ! i l Dismissing the C.R.P. without costs (+ '23 \ t -) t-) "r- 1 Hr. SrA r-€ 01 lllAY 2[25 , ?rSPATCHgg t (\ (' o