The High Court · 2025

Amruthamma, Wo. Srfinivas Reddy Aged about 63 Years Occ.Agriculture Buchi Reddy, S/o. Srinivas Reddy Aged about 45 Years Occ. Agriculture. Hanmanth Reddy, S/o. Srinivas Reddy Aged about 42 Years Occ. Agriculture, All FJo. Sirigiripet Village, Hamlet of Allapur Village, Tandur Mandal, Vikarabad District. ..RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS Petition under Order 47 rule 1 R/w Section 114 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order reviewing the impugned order in CRP No 2992 of 2O24, daled 2810112025. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Rakesh Sanghi Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Koppula Gopal The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR TIIE STATE OF TELANGANA HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA Rev.I.A.No. I of 2o25 IN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2992 OF 2024

30.t2.2025 Betwee n: Satyamma &. t\r,o others And Amruthamma & two others ORDER: Petitioners ..... Respondents Respondents - Defendants had taken out I.A.No 106 of 2024 in O.S. No. 45 of 2015 on the hle of the Principal District Judge' Court at Vikarabad under Order VIII Ruie iA(3) read with Section 151 CPC to introduce certified copy of gift deed. The learned District Judge dismissed the said Application observing that there is no pleading in the written statement of defendants pertaining to the document in question and no foundation is also laid with reference to this document therefore, the same, at this stage, cannot be received in the light of the principles laid down in the judgment of this Court in Kgatham Rajlanmar u. Vaddepalll RaJamanl (2023 (5) ALD 530 TS. 2

1. 1. However, this Court allowed the Revision fiIed by defendants observing that 'in tlte lbht of the clear and categorical statement made by defendants in their turitten statenent, tt connot be said that there is no pleading tuith reference to the document in question; defendants haue filed the subject Application qssigning cogent reoson for not producing the document along uith u;itten statement; it cannot be di.sputed tlnt this document is necessary for arriuing at a just decision in the suit; this CourT therefore, of tLe uiew ttnt the leamed District Judge ought to haue granted leaue to produce the doanment.' To arrive at such a conclusion, this Court had taken into consideration the well-settled law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases that 'procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the Court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversar5z party, Courts must lean towards doing substaltial justice rather than relying upon procedural arld technica.l violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and tJle Court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the I Court shoulrl take a lenient vierv when an Application is made lor production of the documents under sub-rule (3).

2. Nou' plaintiifs have ta-ken out this Review Application stating that the entire written statement is silent regarding the paretmount title of Smt. Laxmamma (paternal auntl' of Anjan Reddy) who is alleged to have executed the subject gift decd datcd 13th Amardad 135 I Fasli. It is stated, new story regarding the title of Laxmamma was sought to be agitated by defendants at thc stage of cross-examination of P.W. 1. Plaintilfs pointed out that this Court in the order under review extr:lctcd the relevant paragraph from the written statement which pertains to pleadings relating to title of Anjan Reddy (without reference to paramount title of Laxmamma) and the gift deeds executed by Anj an Reddy but failed to notice that written statement is silent regarding gift deed.

3. Heard Sri Rakesh Sanghi, learned counsel for review petitioners - plaintiffs. He emphatically submits that the judgment of rhis Court referred to supra applies squarely to the facts of this case.

4. Sri Koppula Gopal, learned counsel on behalf of Respondents - defendants submits that suit lands were absolute property of one Smt. Laxmamma who is the sister of 4 Anjan Reddy's father and she performed marriage of Anjan Reddy with her daughter Buchamma and as Buchamma died Laxmamma was looked after by Anjan Reddy and during her life time, she gifted thc suit lands under the a,foresaid registered gift deed to Anjan Reddy and its copy is recently obtained by defendants arrd the said document is a crucial document to show that Anj an Reddy became the owner and possessor of suit lards by virtue of the said deed from whom defendants purchased the lzrnds and it disproves the case of plaintiffs that suit lalds are ancestral properties, therefore the gift deed may be received on behalf of defendants. Learned counsel, in support of his contentions, reiied on the judgments of . the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Leaq.ku Ped.da Reddamma a. bg Lrs. a. P. Rajkumar (Civil Appeal No. 3427 of 2O2Ol.

5. Perused the order under review. Admittedly, the certihed copy of the document was obtained by defendants on

25.11.2023 but the Interlocutory Application was filed on O7.O2.2O24 and a perusal of the averments of the written statement shows no reference of the document under which late Anj an Reddy is stated to have succeeded to the suit lands. This Court in the above-referred judgment arising out of the ' 2012 Live Law (SC) 53i i I provisions of Order 8 Rule 1A(3) in a suit for partition when a will deed rvas filed sceking to receive the same without any pleading on behalf ol defendants therein, held that in the absence o[ anv foundation with regard to a document in the pleading, such document cannot be received at a belated stage. This Court in the order under review though referred to the said judgment, has not taken into consideration the fact that no foundation is Iaicl with reference to the document relating to acquisition of suit properties by Late Anjan Reddy, which is error apparent on the face of the order. Hence, this Court is of the view that the said order is liable for review.

6. Review I.A.No. I of 2025 is accordingly allowed. Consequently, I.A.No. 106 ot 2024 in O.S.No. 45 of 2015 on the 'fiIe of the Principal District Judge's Court at Vikarabad is dismissed. I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER sd/- SREENIV REIJDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To,

1. The Principal District Judge, Vikarabad District 2. One CC to Sri Rakesh Sanghi Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Koppula Gopal Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies VH/DL HIGH COURT DATED: 3011212025 \ I ORDER REV. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 IN CRP.No.2992 of 2O24 ,)i ,tHE SIA L) 2 B JAt.l 2026 :.. 1 .t( { / ALLOWING I.A. G'C'\ VJtr{"