The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents: J VENKATESWARA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER 7 I i I t ' ! HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY CwI REVISION PETITION No.3488 OF2025 ORDER: (ORAL) This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17 .07 .2025 passed by the leamed Principal District Judge, Hanumakonda (for short 'trial Court') in I.A. No.l137 of 2025 n O.S. No.179 of 2022.

2. The petitioner is the delendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

3. The plaintiff fited thc suit in O.S. No.l79 of 2022 for specific performance ofagreement of sale deed dated 12.04.2012 allegedly executed by the defendant. The delendant filcd l.A. No.l137 of 2025 under Order XVI Rule l(2) and 1(3) of the Codc olCivil Procedure (C.P.C.) to summon one Mr. Masireddy Ravinder Rao to producc original agreement of sale deed dated

05.07.2025 and receipts dated 08.10.2007 and 06.08.2010 to give evidence.

4. In the affidavit in LA. No. l l37 of 2025. the defendant averred that the plaintiff created false and labricatcd agreement ol sale deed dated 12.04.2012 in collusion with her husband by name Mr. Krishna. The defendant filed written statement denying the execution of the agreement of sale deed dated 2

12.04.2012. Further, the defendant pleaded that on 05.07.2005, he executed an agreement of sale in favour of Mr. Masireddy Ravinder Rao S/o. Mallaiah for valid sale consideration of Rs.5,75,000/- (Rupees five lakhs seventy five thousand only) in respect of the suit property situated at Peddakodepaka Village, Shayampet Mandal, Warangal District. That on the date of agreement, the defendant received Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only); subsequently, he received Rs.2,25,000i- (Rupees two lakhs twenty five thousand only) on 06.0E.2010 and on 08.10.2007, he received Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) under separate receipts from Mr. Masireddy Ravinder Rao. Thus, in total, the defendant received Rs.5,75,000/- (Rupees five lakhs seventy five thousand only) as sale deed consideration from Mr. Masireddy Ravinder Rao. It is further submitted that in view of the disputes between the defendant and husband ol the plaintiff by name Mr. Krishna with regard to payment of commission, Mr. Krishna created Ex.A- l and A-2 documents in collusion with the plaintiff and instituted the suit. It is further averred that the original agreement of sale deed dated 05.07.2005 and receipts dated

08.10.2007 and 06.08.2010 exccuted by the defendant are witr Mr. Masireddy Ravinder Rao, as such, the said documens could not be filed by the defendant. Therefore, Mr. Masireddy Ravinder Rao may be summoned as witness along with the original agreement of sale deed 05.07.2005 and receipts dated

08. 10.2007 and 06.08.20 10. 3

5. The plaintiff filed counter in I.A. No.ll37 of 2025 contending that the suit was filed in 2012 and after lapse of twelve (12) years and after completion ofevidence on both sides and at the stage of arguments the defendant has filed the application. The alleged agreement of sale deed dated 05.07.2005 is not valid and not acted upon and cannot be enforced as it is barred by law of limitation.

6. The trial Court passed the order dated 17.07.2025 by observing that the application is filed at belated stage. The defendant could not state the status of the agreement of sale whether it is abandoned or rescinded or cancelled. The defendant did not explain the delay of l2 years in seeking to produce/summon the document.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioncr/defendant submitted that the impugrred order passed by the trial court is unsustainable. The evidential value of the agreement will be tested at the time of hearing the main suit and the trial Court cannot pre-judge the issue as done in the instant case. The agreement of sale deed and the receipts, which are in the custody of the proposed witness, Mr. Masireddy Ravinder Rao are relevant to prove the casc ol the defendant. Thus, the impugrred order dated 17 .01 .2025 passcd by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. I 4 a

8. Learned counsel of the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the application is filed at a belated stage and after lapse of 12 years of filing of the suit. The defendant did not even enter the witness box. Unless, the defendant entem the witness box and speaks something about the alleged agreernent of sale deed dated 05.07.2005, the question of summoning the witness and documents in his custody, which have no relevancy to the dispute, does not anse.

9. Heard Mr. K.L.N.Raghavendra Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioner; Mr. J.Venkateshwara Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent; and perused the material on record

10. The suit is filed by the plaintiff in 2013 and re-numbered as O.S. No.l79 of 2022. The avermcnts in I.A. No.ll37 of 2025 does not say anything regarding the delay caused in filing the application. After completion of evidence and at the stage of arguments in the suit, the application is filed. The trial Court recorded that the defendant did not file the list of witnesses. The defendant did not file Photostat copy or the original agreement of sale deed 05.07.2005 or the registercd sale deed allegedly executed in pursuance of the agreement ol sale. Thc defendant cannot introduce new facts or new pleas. The order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality and material irregularity- As pointed out by the trial Court, 5 the defendant did not explain the delay nor has stated anything regarding the status of the alleged agreement ofsale. I l. In view of the above, there are no merits in this petition. Accordingty, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any. pending in this civil revision petition, stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SO/- P PONNA KRISHNA STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER l To, 1 . The Principal District Judge, Hanumakonda., Hanumakonda Distrlct 2. One CC to SRl. K L N RAGHAVENDRA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. J VENKATESWARA REDDY Advocate IOPUC] 4 Two CD Copies PKPSL rwu) HIGH COURT DATED:2411112025 I "t CRP.No.3488 of 2025 ,.lR 1 t c o * 2 5 i,lt,R 2026 I I FATC * CIVIL REVISTON PETITION IS DISMISSED. aTr4 2sfz/ze i ,l