The High Court · 2025

Order

1. This Civil Revision Petition is hled unrl :r Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order dated

09.O8.2O23 passed in I.A.No.239 of 2023 i: r O.S.No.365 of 2015 on the file of learned I Addl. Senicr Civil Judge, Medcha-I-Malkaj giri District at Malkajgiri.

2. Petitioner herein is defendant No.2, rer; rondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff and respondent Nr.2 herein is defendant No.1, in the suit.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for t he petitioner submits that the learned trial Court erred j:r dismissing the petition for receiving documents on th,: ground that the respondent No.l-plaintiffls evidence ar d the other ^t witnesses of thb plaintiff are already over E nd therefore t the plaintiff or his witnesses could not be ccr Lfronted with 2 BRMR,J CRP.No.2763 of 2023 the said documents. The learned trial Court failed to see that the Rules of Procedure are handmaide of justice and not a mistress of justice. The learned trial Court failed to examine the contents of the written statement, wherein it 1S clearly mentioned that the plaintiff has taken away several documents from the Balk locker. The learned Tria,l Court failed to examine the sarne and the petitioner- defendant No.2 has pleaded in the written statement that the respondent No. l-plaintiff has agreed to give up her rights over the suit schedule property vide settlement dated 19.09.2005 for a consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. Counsel to substantiate his contentions, has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Sugandhi (Dead) by Legal Representatives and another v. P. Rajkumar represented by his power agent Imam Olit and (ii) Levaku Pedda Reddamma and others v. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma and another2 l I (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 706 2 2022 Supreme (SC) 1492 BRMR,J (:l P.No.2763 of 2023 3 -

4. Notice to respondent No.1 is seryec, but, none appeared.

5. The General Power of Attorney (GPA) t older of the petitioner-defendant No.2 herein by name ( .Raghu has frled his evidence affrdavit before the Tr i.l Court as DW-l and also filed application to receive tht documents vide I.A.No.239 of 2023 under Order MII Frile 1-A r/w. Section 151 of CPC seeking leave of the Cor-lrt to receive the documents in support of his contentions

6. Respondent No.l, who is respondent :{o.1, in the above said application has hled his counter contending that the documents are not relevant to thr facts of the case.

7. The learned trial Court after going r hrough the material on record has dismissed I.A.No.23lt of 2023, on O9.O8.2O23, which is impugned in the Ciril Revision Petition. t- \'1 BRMR,J CRP.No-2763 of 2023 4

8. The case of the respondent No.l-plaintiff is that after the death of her father she was residing in the suit schedule property i.e., house bearing No.36-25 (old No.l9-2O/291 along with defendant Nos.1 and 2 (petitioner and respondent Nos.2 herein) and thereafter she got married to one Mr.M.M. Kumar. At that tirne she was working as House Surgeon, ald all the marriage expenses were borne by her and later shifted to Bangalore and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are residing in the suit schedule property.

9. Petitioner herein, who is defendant No.2, in the suit has hled his written statement contending that himself and defendant No.1 therein are residing ln the said House and paying taxes and other charges to the authorities concerned and the first defendant is a mentally challenged person and is a spinster, who has been taken care by the petitioner-defendant No.2. It is further stated in the written statement that the original 5 BRMR,J )RP-No.2763 of 2023 document of the House property which wer: in the bank locker was taken away by the respondenr. No. l-plaintiff along with valuables when her father was I ick and were to be returned to the defendants. In ttL : year 2O05, plaintiff therein (respondent No.1 herein) b:came greedy made a demand that she would be per C a sum of Rs.2,OO,000/- for return of original tit t deeds and connected documents of the House anc. he paid an amount Rs.1,0O,0O0 l- on 19.O9.2O05 vide [,emand Draft bearing No.873355, dated 17.09.2OO5.

10. The documents filed along with the e pplication in I.A.No.239 of 2023 are original propert5r dotr rments, bills, payments, receipts of electricier bills, wate r supply bills and original acknowledgement receipts, ori linal copy of Andhra Bank, Demand Draft receipts and or ginal copy of Ietter addressed from plaintiff to defendar.t No.2, and photographs. 6 BRMR,J CRP.No.2763 of2023

11. Petitioner-defendant No.2 has specifically contented that in the written statement that he is paying propert5i tax in respect of plaint schedule property. The learned trial Court has lost sight of the same and held that they €rre not helpful to the case of the petitioner-defendant No.2. Respondent No.1-plaintiff 1n the plaint has admitted in para No.6 that she received Rs.1,00,000/- from her brother (petitioner herein) AS a good w'ill on

19.09.2005.

12. In so far as the document dated 24.O4.2O0O is concerned, there is no pleading with regard to the same in the written statement and the learned trial Court has rightly held that in absence of any pleading the documents ca,nnot be considered.

13. ProperQr tax receipt dated 10.08.1999 goes to show that it is pertaining to house bearing No.36-25, it does I not pgrtain to the suit schedule proper$r, hence the said document cannot be considered BRMR,J O P.No.2763 of 2023 1 L4. In case of Sugandhil the Supreme Cor rt held that the procedure is haldmaid of justice - pr::edural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to cor re in way of Court while doing substantial justice.

15. In case of Levaku Pedda Redc:i Lmma2 the Supreme Court held that rules of prc cedure aIe handmaid ofjustice and, therefore, even if tlrere is some delay, the trial Court should have imposr: some costs rather than to decline the production of tht documents itself.

16. The decisions cited by the learned senic r counsel in support of his contentions are applicable tc the case on hand. The Propert5r Tax Receipt, dated 10.(8.1999 and the document dated 24.O4.2OOO are not br sed on any pleadings, hence, they cannot be considerecl The rest of the documents hled along with the application (I.A.No.239 of 2023) are pertaining to the su rit schedule -r-\ \ _-r?.,f._rl BRMR,J CRP.No.2763 of 2023 8 property and they are to be taken on record and the order passed by the learned trial Court is perverse and this Court is inclined to interfere with the same' L7. In view of the above said reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed as indicated in the order' There shalt be no order as to costs. Interim orders if any shall stand vacated' Miscellaneous Petitions shall stand closed' Sd/- MOHD. IS DEPUTY RE RAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To

1. The t Additional Senior Civil Judge, . trledchal lt/alkajgiri District, at Malkajgiri.(with records if any)

2. One CC to SRl. Setty Ravi Teja, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies ?,"rr. HIGH COURT DATED 1111112025 ORDER CRP No.2763 of 2023 ----:,-t--- r L..- ( _i-::. ('-' o() t * $)'iI 5 'l /\n 2026 * I .spr-ct CIVIT- REVISION PETITION IS PARTLY ALLOWED tt lrlr-6