The High Court · 2025

Kalva Srirampur Mandal in Peddapalli District.

2. Kanchena Sheshamma, Wo. Chandraiah, Age. 46 years, R/o. AnkampalliMllage of Kalva Srirampur Mandal in Peddapalli District. ... Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 stay all further proceedings in O.S. No. 94 of 2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge- cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapalli, pending disposal of the accompanying Civil Revision Petition Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri. Mahboob Hussain Counsel for the Respondents: Sri V. Rama Chander Rao The Gourt made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CML REVISION PEIITION No.3595 of 2ol25 DATED: o,4.12.2ot25 Between: Kanchena Kanaka Laxmi and 2 others ...Petitioners AND Kanchena Narayana and another. ...Respondents ORDER: This Revision Petition is filed assailing the Order dated

01.08.2025 in I.A.No.43l of 2025 in O.S.No.94 of 2OL3, on the lile of learned Senior Civil Judge, at Peddapalli, by which I.A.No.431 of 2025,liled by the petitioners to receive documents was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri Mohboob Hussain, learned Counsel for petitioners and Sri V.Ram Chander-Rao;-lenrned Counsel for respondents.

3. l,earned Counsel for petitioners would submit that petitioners herein liled a suit urde O.S.No.94 of 2013, on the file of learned Senior Civil Judgb, Peddapalli, to declare petitioners/plaintiffs as owners and possessors of suit schedule propert5r, for recovery of suit schedule propert5r and to declare the sale deed No.7427 of 2OL2, dated L2.L2.2O12 as null and void and not binding on the LNA,J C.R.P.No.3595 of 2025 2 petitioners; that respondents entered appearance and liled written statem,:nt resisting the claim of the petitioners; that the entire trial was completed and the matter was coming up for arguments. At this stage, petitioners filed three applications i.e., I.A.No.431 of 2025 to receive certified copy of 1-8, I.A.No.432 of 2o2s to reopen the evidenc:e of petitioners and I.A.No.44L of 2o2s to recall p.w.1. The trial crrurt uide common order dated 01.08.2025, dismissed the applications with an observation that there is no whisper in the plaint about the documents sought to be taken on record and without- any pleading, adducing evidence would not help the petitior:ers. It was further observed that suit was posted for arguments, at this stage, petitioners filed these applications to receive documents and the same are devoid of merits and thus, dismissed the applications- Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition is filed. 4- Learned Counsel for petitioners further submitted that trial Court f,riled to exercise powers vested under Order 7 rule 1a(3) and - " -order 18 rule 17 R/w. section 151 of cpc; and passed the Oidei in a mechar.ical manner without assigning proper reasons. He further submitted that 1-B Register, which is sought to be taken on record, is a crucial document to prove the case of the petitioners and therefore, the trial court ought to have received the document on LNA,J C.R.P.No.359s of 2025 3 record. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for petitioners relied upon following Judgments of tl.e Hon'lcle Apex court: 1l K.K.Velusamg Vs. ILPaI anisamgt, ii) vadiraj Naggappa verneko;r I/s. sharadcho;ndra Prabhqkar @gatd, iii) Sugan dhi (Deo,d) bg Lrs Vs. P.rqikumo;ta, iv) sortem Aduocate Bar Assoclation vs. union of Indid, vl R.N.Jadi &' Brothers Vs. Subhashchandra's

5. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondents submitted that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application and the same was hled at the belated stage, when the matter was coming up for arguments. He further submitted that without any foundation, the documents cannot be taken on record and the applications were filed only to drag on the proceedings, therefore, the trial court has rightly disrnissed the application as- the same.*is devoid of any merit' In support of his contention, he relied upon the Order passed by this court in Bhoasing (Died) per I'Rs. and oth.ers vs. Nllmratlro. and 3 ' lzor r; l r scc 275 '?lzooey 4 scc 4lo lzozo; lo scc 706 lzoos;6 scc 344 lzooz;6 scc 420 5 4 LNA,J C.R.P.No.3595 of 2025 4 other:* in c-R-p.Nos-r629, gzs4 and. 3g43 of 2024, which was referre:d to and relied upon by the trial Court. 6- Perusal of the record discloses that suit was filed in the year 2ol3 rrnd the entire triar was completed and when the matter was coming up for arguments, petitioners filed the application to receive certified copy of r-B register. In the affidavit filed in support of the applicttion to receive said document no proper reason has been assignr:d for non filing of the document along with plaint and no explanrrtion has been offered for filing the application at the belated stage, that too when the matter was coming up for arguments. Furthe.:, there is no reference in the plaint with regard to document sought to be taken on record, thereficre, there is no factual foundaiion with regard to the document sought to be received.

7. It. is relevant to refer to order 7 rure 14(3) of cpc, as per which, the document which ought to be produced by the petitioners along with tht: plaint shall not be permitted to be produced without leave of the cotrrt. In the present case, admittedly, the document i.e., 1-B register has not been listed in the list of documents and there is no \ \whisper in the praint and further there is no explanation for the rnordrnerte delav in filing the application as well as relevancy of the qes-- 6 zozs 1sy ALD 767 ! LNA,J C.R.P.No.3595 of 2025 5 documenttoprovetheclaimofthepetitioners.TheJudgments referred to and relied upon by the petitioners have no application to the facts of the Present case' S.Itisapttorefertothejudgmentoft}reHonbleSupremeCourt inK.K.VelusamgVs.N.PqlorniSoltlllT,whereinatpara-19,itis observed as hereunder:- *Wemayaddawordofcaution.Tywpou)erunderSectionlSl orOrderlsRulelToftheCodeisnotintended"tobeused routinely, merely for the asking' If so used' it will defeat the uery purpose of uarious o*t1i*Lnts to tte Code to expedite trials. But wlere the application is found to be bona fide and where fue ad"ditional euidence, irat or d.oanmentary, tpill [email protected] assistinrenderingjustice,an,dthecourtissatisftedtlutnon- production earliei was for uatid" and suJficient reasons' the courtmaaexerciseitsd.iscretiontorecallttrcuitnessesor permit the fresh euidene' But if it does so' it slwuld ensure that tle process does not become a protracting tactic' The courtshouldfirstlyaward"appropriatee.os.tstotheotlerparta to compensate for the delag'. Seco-ndtg' 'tle court should talce the case within afued time sc?wdule so that up and' "o*pl"i" tledelayisauoided.Thirdty,ifttleappticationisfoundtob.e mischieuous, or fiuolous, or to-querup negligen@ or laannae' it stautd be rejected tttith?waug costs"' \ \

9. - tn the tight of the aforesaid judgment and applying the ratio to theinstantcase,itistobeseenthatt}repetitionersfailedtogive vatid and sufficient reasons to the satisfaction of the court as to why the said document was not filed arong with the ptaint, or at ]east '1zott;tl scc27s 6 LNA,J C.R.P.No.3595 of 2025 while' Ieading evidence on their behalf and therefore, the petitioners do not deserve any indulgence of this Court. 10' Taking into account the totarity of a, these aspects, this court come!; to an irresistibre concrusion that the present apprication is filed ty the petitioners only to protract the proceedings and to fi, up the lar:unae and laches in their case. I 1' tn the light of the foregoing discussion and reasons and arso the sei:tled regar position of law, this court is of considered opinion that t,e trial court has rightry declined to receive the document sought to be presented by the petitioners and dismissed the application' The revision petitioners failed to point out any illegarity or irreS;ularity in the impugned order passed by the trial court, warranting interference by this Court. 12' H'-'fice, this civil Revision petition fa,s and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. pltitiong pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SEGTION OFFICER Peddapaili. To,

1. The 2. One 3. One ' 4. Two DL/PSL I s:. c q TH t c i) i * r) I 7 r[8 lu:t6 * HIGH COURT DATED:08l1iU2O2S ORDER CRP.No.3595 of 2025 DISMISSING]'HE C.R.P J-rs tBlzlza