The High Court · 2025

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY all further proceedings in O.S. NO. 125 of 2013 on the file of the Sr. Civil Judge, Vikarabad, At Vikarabad. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. S. Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Nadipally Ananda Rao The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLI' S,iItI "IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETI'}' CIVIL R ,\/ISION PETITION No.2991 OF 2024 ORDER: This tl ir i I ::r,ision Petition is filed challengir.rg tht: c rder dated 08.08.20.1.i. 1'rssed by the Senior Civil Judge, \/ikaraba,l, in I.A.No. 152 r>[(t.2 I in O.S.No.l25 of 2013.

2. Heard Sri )rabahakar Reddy, learned counsel lbr the petitioner and \1r ''.ladipally Anand Rao, leamed counsel fbr the respondent

3. The peti i,,r , : hercin is the defendant and the respondent herein is the: pJair :f in the suit. For convenience, the panies are hereinafter refere, to as they are arrayed in the suit.

4. Brief thctrr ,,ading to fiting of the present Civil i{,:vision Petition are r.ha h : plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.125 of 2() 1.', for specific pertbnna. ,e of agreement of sale dated 19.02.1.()1 1 , in respect of agri<:L [t lal land bearing survey No.85/E, admeiLsu ring Ac.04-00 gts ort rt' Ac.06-3 I gts., situated at Antharam Village, Dharur Mandal, \ r 1.1313[36 District (herein after refetred as ''suit schedule prol)e1\ 'r contending that out of total sale cons der of Rs.8,40,000/-, Iu: nid an amount Rs.1,00,000/- on the sante day ary! the reurairrin sale consideration on different dates. Ihe 2 LNA, J C-R.P-No.2991 o/ 2024 -I specific case of the plaintiff that despite paying the enrire sale consideration, the respondent failed to execute the registered sale deed in his favour within 24 months as per the agreement of sale. Hence, the suit.

5. Perusal of the record would show that the suit was coming up for plaintifls evidence and in the cross-examination of pWl on

13.12.2023, the counsel for defendant suggested to pWl that the defendant never obtained any loan and no loan is due ,by the defendant in respect of the suit propefty at any point of time, however, PWl denied the said suggestion. It is further contended that to disprove the said contention of the defendant, the plaintiff filed true copy of Form-B Declaration creating charge with regard to the suit schedule property in the name of defendant vrde document No.695 of 1999, true copy of Mortgage deed, bearing document Nio.268 of 2004, dated 06.02.2024, executedin favour of State Bank of Hyderabad, ADB, pargi Branch with regard to suit schedule property and original statement of Encumbrance on property, dated, 28.12.2023 and certified copy of docket order, dated, 07 .02.201 7 and certified copy of docket order dated

03.07.2015 in I.A.No. 124 of 2015 in O.S.No.46 of 2005 on the file J I,NA. J C.R.P.No.299l oJ 2024 of Principal . , nlor Civil Judge, Vikarabad. Acc,>rdingly, I.A.No.l5ll cf )24 in O.S.No.125 of 2013 was filed ty the plaintiff undcr lder VII Rute t4(3) read with Secti,rrL 151 of C.P.C., prlyirr.r . re Courl to receive the documents men:.iorled in the petition. f h, ,aid application was dismissed by trial Crtu'lvide order dated 08.(:.2024 by observing that the documents in ended to be marke I , r behatf of the plaintiff cannot be taker into consideratron '\ . rout there being any pleading or referen;e of the said documert; r' the plaint and hence, the said documenls are not relevant to tl-rr: p ('sent case

6. Learnel c rr-rnsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contendt:d '.hat in the suit, plairLtif ' has categorically taken a plea that the as 1er tl.re terms of 1he rLp lement, the sale transaction shall be c()[ pleted within a peri,r,J 't'24 months lrom the date of agreemen- ar.rd the plaintiff agrcr:rl . pay the entire consideration within in rr ler iod of 24 months ani t r,.r defendant shall execute the registered :ial,: deed by clearing th,: ,:nk loan and taking title deed frorn the bank on receipt of the ,:r :r -c sale consideration. It is further contendt.rd that trial court 1-ail:c ,r appreciate that all the documents sough'. to be 4 LNA, J C.R.P.No.299l of 2024 filed by the plaintiff are relevant for proper adjudication of the suit. Therefope, he prayed the Courl to allow the revision petition 7 . In support of his contentions, leamed counsel for petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Hemant Gupta v. V.Ramasubramanian il , wherein it is held as under: "...We Jind that the trial Court as well as the High Court have gravely erred in law in nol permitting the defendants to produce documents, the relevance of which can be examined by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence to. be led, but to deprive a porty to the suit not to file documents even if there is some delay will lead to deniol of justice. It is well settled that rules of procedure are hand-maid of justice and, therefore, even if there is some delay, the trial Court should have imposed some costs rather lhan to decline the production of the documents itself ... " 8 Per contra, leamed counsel for-the respondent/defendant contended that defendant intended to sell the suit schedule property situated in Sy.No.S5/AA. In the cross examination of P.W. 1, the counsel for defendant suggested that the defendant never obtained any loan and no loan is due by the defendant in respect of the suit property at any point of time and the plaintiff denied the said suggestion. It is further contended that the trial Court rightly 'z2022 Lrvetaw(Sc) 533 ) LNA, J C.R.P l\0.2't9l of 2024 dismissed ..1 r: rpptication and that no grounds itre madr) out to entertain tlLe. r,esent petition and to prayed to dismiss llevision Petition

9. A per,l: I L of the material placed on record uould shcw that it is the specil',: L rrse ol the plaintiff that during cross-ex atl-ti rlation of P.W-1, learte ] counsel for defendant suggested that thr: c efendant never obtaitte I any loan and no loan is due by the d:fendant in respect of tirt ,uit properly at any point of time and the plaintiff denied the sr i,J suggestion. To disprove the content ors of the defendant riirr regard to obtaining loan on the strit schedule propertv, 1r,: plaintiff filed I.A.No. 152 ol 20?-4 tr1 f Lling the documents :r.: :Lforesaid stated' However, by the imptrgrred order dated 08.)8 lrl)24, the trial Court dismissed app icrrtion by observing tha r}le said documents were not relevant t'o th e present case. i0. In conr i,Jered opinion of this Court, the trial Cort ought to have aclop -i rJ I iheral approach while adjudicating the appl Lcation to receive the r lcuments, since substantial rights of the l.larties in immovabl : p )pefty are involved and also in the lighr- ol the law laid t'orvr b the Apex Court in case of Hemant Gupta (cited \ 6 LNA, J C.R.P.No.299l of 2024 supra). There is specific averrnent in paragraph No.3 of the plaint that in terms of the agreement of sale, the sale transaction shall be completed within a period of 24 months from the date of agreement of sale and the ptaintiff agreed to pay the entire consideration within a period of 24 months and in turn, the defendant shall execute the registered sale deed by clearing the bank loan and taking title deed from the bank on receipt of the entire sale consideration. Hence, the plaintiff was able to make out a case and reasons stated also appear to be plausible and cogent. Therefore, it is a fit case to receive the aforesaid documents filed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff can be given an opportunity to place on record the documents to substantiate his contention. The consequence of receiving the documents and permitting the plaintiff to contest the suit, would only result in the matter being decided on ments instead of adjddicating the matter in narrow compass 1 l. Therefore, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court ought to have allowed the application filed by the plaintiff. 7 L,\A, J C.R.P.No 2't9l of 2024

12. Accord ng' , this Civil Revision Petition is allowe'd arLd the impugned order : setaside and I.A'No.152 of 2024 in O S No'125 of 2013 on tlti: 'le of the Senior Civit Judge, Vikarabatl, rtands allowed. Furth,:r '.he trial Court is directed to dispose o1'the r'uit as expeditiously zrs rossible since the suit pertains to the 1'ear 2013' No costs.

13. Miscel a :ous petitions pending, if any, shall stand cl'rsed' //TRUE COPY// Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. 2 J. 4. DUplp The Senio'C 'ril Judge, Vikarabad, at Vikarabad one CC to {ili. lii. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to [/r. lladipally Ananda Rao, Advocate [OPU()] Two CD Copie: rrl r,tr jl4/ 6 J _); 2 .i [,' :U5 ($( z o -\ + \\,ri\.: 5o4 r rr{ .. :i S: . 't, HIGH COURT DATED:30/0'l/2025 ORDER CRP.No.2991 of 2024 ALLOWING THE C,F.T 7 4-/ t I