M/s. Sadara Hotels (P) Ltd v. 1. K. Sudhakar Naidu

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 an interim relief so as to stay the adjudication of E.P. No.419 ot 2022 for a iimited period of 2 weeks or so for proper adjudication of the revision' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.SHARAT KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI S.RAVI, Advocate Senior Counsel Appearing Ms.M. NAGA DEEPAK The Court made the following: ORDER - TIIE I{ONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE I'. SAM KOSHY Civil Petition No.3592 of 2o25 ORDEtrI : The present civil Revision petition has been rr]eci by the petitiont:r under section i 1s of civil procedu-re cocle, lgo| assailinll the Dccket order dated 27.a3.2*2s in E.A.rio,7r of 2423 ir: E.P.No.4 i9 of 2022 (for shorr, ,the impugned order'). 2' Heeird Mr. s- sharat, rearned counser for the peririone:- and Mr.fi. Rarri, iearned senior counsel appea_i-ing on bei:a_rr. of N{r.M. Naga Deepak, rearned counsel for the resnondenis.

3. Vtdzthe impugned order, the Exeitcurrq c{}u:-i rel-us*d ,-c mark the three documents through pW. 1, \,i2., Sl.l''Io. i o. Ex.A.2i I I :2. Ex.A.22 a J Ex.A.23 Description :-i i Scheme of Amalgamaticn __-__,1 C.C. of ::i.: C'j,.f: i)3ni, r Petition Nos.1O9 and 1lO oi i973 aiong ivith iisr of properties of the pAB C '*hi:i shoi.,-s tha: il^,c pABC does not have any properlv' at Pe<k.la l;uiur Viriage. dated 05.O7.i973 Findings of the soie Arbitrator .--jusr ice- ii. Plin:: iiiah Retireci Judge of Andhra pradesi: H iq:.i C,;i.i'i, riaied 21.O5.i989, ,r.ith regard to Fle.", l;Icses ii,.l:c :-<e r:uiei an ag!'eernent of Sale :n fa'.rGLIi- cf -ir.cree fi,:i.-ier dated 2t.06.1 989 Minutes of the meering and aurhc:-izarl G.D.D. Diwakar dared 3O.AT.ig9t ic r:r'ici :iiegai ' encroach er David Raju dated 3 c.o7.1,995 ion to lvl:' I I i i I I l i I ctP_3592_2425 P5K,J

4. The matter revoives around a judgment passed through the Lok Adalat by way of a compromise petition vide Award dated 15.12.2005 in O.S.No.4i of 2OO5 passed by the Lok Adalat, at Machiiipatnam under S."tior, 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. In the said Ar,r'ard respondent No. t herein was plaintiff in the above suit, whereas respondent No.2 herein was not a party in the above suit.

5. Initiall,v, the suit O.S.No.41 of 2OO5 was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant seeking for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale dated 27.11.1996 by directing the defendant to execute ar:d register the sale deed in respect of the plaint scheduie propert3.' and for other reliefs. The suit u'as pertaining to 'A' and 'B' scheciule of properties. trn the cor-trse of settlement, the piaintiffs have not pressed their ciaim against B' schedule propertl-. The said 'B' schedule property is reproduced as under, viz., "8" Sclwduie property {tted an behaLf af the plaintiffs All that piece and parcel of the ianci admeasuring Acs.3.A0 out of tatal ertent of 1A.0O cents ot Peda Guduru I ..1.. .rc_3;9>_2o2i PSK,J u)ithin the Sub-Registry of Machilipatnam, in R.5.no.512, is bounded bg : Dast South ],lorth West R. Anasugamma R. Saradhi Pedintlamma N- Rajendra Prasad 6" The petiticner herein, in the execution petition that i.vas filed be:ore the Executi.ng Court, i.e., E.P.No.419 ,sf 2A22, respondent No.1 arrd respondent No.2 1 Decree Holder i Judgment Debtor raised a rival claim and sought fcr sta-\' oi further oroceedings in E.P.No.419 of 2022. In the p:-rcess of decidinE; the said E.A.No.71 of 2O22 by the Executing Court. the peti:ioner (as PW.1) has filed his examination-in-chief on

12.03.2()24 and also filed an Additional Chief Exarnination on

24.D2.21)25. In the said chief exarnination, the petrticrier ias PW" i) i::tended to get the above referred three documents rnarked as Exs"A21 to A23. Holvever, vide the impr-rg;.red order, t,:e Executing Court refused to mark the abcve three documents.

7. Assaiiing the same, the instant Civil Rerrision Petirion is fiiecl by the petitioner. t II ::4:: crp_J591-:cl5 P5K,i {' S.Learned'counselforthepetitionercontendedthatthe subject three documents which the petitioner intend to get thern marked are pubiic cocuments arr-ri in'hich are available intheprrbiicdomainand..assuchthenia.rkingofthesame would.notcausean-y_pre3ud'icetotheinterestofparties; rather the tlocuments wouid bring i-nore ciarity in respect of claimofthepetitioneraSalsotheentitlementcfthe respond.ents / defendants' He further contended that the Executing court failed to appreciate the provisions of section T4altdTTofthelndianEvidenceAct,ls72onthebasisof rvhichthethreed.ocumentsinquestioncoulcbemarked.He further contended that mere marking of the th;:ee rlocuments b-v itself r.vould n.ot prove the Case in favour ot.petitioner, bttt in the course of decicling the E.F. the Exec.r-tting court u'ouid deiinitetyconsid.ertheer,id.entiar-.v'i,a].ueofr-ircrsedocuments; andifthedocumentsdonothavean.r,evidentiaryvalu.ethe ExecutingCourtwouidnothavegranteciD.fl],'reiieftothe petitionerthatwould.flowfromthesethreedocuments:and therefore, prayed, that the Civil Rei,ision Petiticn ma}, be aliowed. I I -

9. P<zr contra, learned counsel for the respondents contencled that, when petitioner was neither an author nor a crp_3r9)_)c2; r)\,_' scribe cf those documents, and the said documents pertain to thirC pzrties, a question therefore arises as to horv rhe petitioner coulC obtain the above three documents; and therefore, contended that the Executing Court had rightl-v rejectec marking of those three documents. He further contencred that if at ali these documents were to be marked, the concerrred person ought to.have been confronted r,r,'ith fr.rr the pul'pose of marking these documents r,r,'hich othenvise cannot be permitted through the petitioner who is totally un- associa':ed with the said documents. He therefore prayed thar there are no rnerits in the Civil Revision Petition, and the same rt:&y'5e dismissed

10. H;rvir-ig heard the contentions put forth on eithei' sict an<l ':n a perusal of the records, this Court opines thar the objec:tions so raised by the respondents before the Execr-rling Court cbjecting to the petitioner in getting these documents marked 'd'ere perfectly justified as, (i) admittedly the petitioner was neither- an author nor a scribe of the said document,s, fiil the doc rments pertain to third-parties, and (iii) thq petitioner t\ \ ::6:: .:'p_3592_2o2i PSK,J *4r-' has not disclosed as to how-, when and from where he had obtained the said documents. The further finding which is culled out is that the petitioner is not a party to the document dated 05.07. ig73 (Ex.A21); the petitionei- irr also nct a party to the arbitration proceeding in which the soie arbitrator was iustice K. Ponnajah, Retired Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court; nor was the petitioner a pafty to the minutes of the meeting dated 30.07. Lg76 which dealt u'ith the issue raised in the said meeting. Another aspect rvhich is apparently evid.ent from the impugned order is that the Executing Court has n*t fore-elosed the right of the petitioner in getting these documents marked but had oni}'- ordered that these clocr.lments couid be rnarked only by the collcerned person related to the said documents; and therefore, the Executing courr. left it open to the petitioner b,v holding that the petitioner may get the d.ocuments marked through concerned person. Therefbre, in the opinion oi this Court, the impugned order passed. b3., the Executing Court cannot he found fault u,ith inore particularly to test the veracity of the order passed by the court exercising revisional poin'ers at this stage- I , - 7 - ! __)>YZ lt z1 r- ) r(.rj

11. Iror arl the aforesaid reasons, the civil Revision petition being de'oid of merit deserves be and ; accordingl-v disrnissed. No costs. 'to L2. As a sequel, misceilaneou shali sland ci,rsei. s applications pending if anv, Sd/. N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. I Adcitional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad 2. One 0C to SRI S.SHARAT KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One 3C to SRI M.NAGA DEEPAK, Advocate [OPUC] r ^ 4. Two 3D Cooies ,l.('ry'NVB/PR HIGH COURT DATED:21 11112025 ORDER CRP.No.:3592 of 2025 -b ( * 1HE S c 6 IliR 2026 2 * DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOU]-COSTS (, I \)- .v t