The High Court · 2025

8. Sri Ch. Pandu, S/o. Not known to the Plaintiffs Aged about 50 years, Occ. business M/s. Maheswari Paints and Hardware 2-4113, Sridevi Complex Prabhath Nagar, Chaitanyapuri Hyderabad - 500 060.

9. Sri Vidyasagar, S/o. Not known to the Plaintiffs Aged about 48 years, Occ. business M/s. Sri Venkateswara Electricals 2-4114, Sridevi Complex Prabhath Nagar, Chaitanyapuri Hyderabad - 500 060.

10.Sri G. Krishna, S/o. Not known to the Plaintiffs Aged about 45 years, Occ. business Mahesh and Mahesh Tailors 2-4114, Sridevi Complex Prabhath Nagar, Chaitanyapuri Hyderabad - 500 060.

11.Sri Narender, S/o. Sri Laxmaiah Aged about3S years, Occ, business Sri Raghavendra Medicals 2-4114, Sridevi Complex Prabhath Nagar, Chaitanyapuri Hyderabad - 500 060.

12.Sri Gutta Yogananda, S/o. Sri G. P. Chowdhary Aged about 29 years, Occ. business Xerox and Painters 2-4114, Sridevi Complex Prabhath Nagar, Chaitanyapuri Hyderabad - 500 060. '13. Sri Bala Raju S/o. Not known to the Plaintiffs A business M/s. SaidattaFurnitures 2-4114, Sridevi Chaitanyapuri Hyderabad - 500 060. ed about 40 years, Occ. omplex Prabhath Nagar, s C

14. M/s. Susheela Infratech lndia Private Limited,, Having its registered office at Survey No.67, Kachivanisingaram, Ghatkesar, R,R. Distnct, Represented by its Managing Director Sri C.P. Reddy, S/o. Jagannatha Reddy, R/o. 12-5-5513, Vijayapuri, Tarnaka. Secu nderabad- 17.

15.Sri Seera Krishna Kishore, S/o. Seera Satyanarayana, Age,38 years, Occ. Business, R/o Flat No, 406, 24th Block, Rain Tree Park, K P.H.B. Hyderabad. ..,RESPONOENTS/DEFENDANTS lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition unde' 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 OS No.354/2013 on the file of the Courl of the Vlll Additional District Jrdge, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl, CHUNAP ANVESH KIRAN Counsel forthe RespondentNos. 1,2 and 3: SRl. NALLAMASU KRISHN Counsel forthe Respondent No.15: SRl. NIZAMPUR CHANDRA SEKHAR The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NU\RAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITI ON No.3 691of2023 OIIDER.. Tlris Civil Revision Petition. under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed assailing the order dated 14. I 1.2023 in I.A.No.381 of 2023 in O.S.No.354 of 20 13. passed by the VllI Additional District Judge, Ranga Ileddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. I-leard Sri C.Ar-rvesh Kiran, leamed counsel for the petitioners, Sri N.Krishna, lcarned counsel for responder-rt No.l to 3, ar-rd Sri N.Chandla Sekhar, learned counsel for responder.rt No. 15

3. Petitioner Nos.l and 2 herein are plaintiffs and respondent Nos. I to 1 5 hcrein are defendant Nos. I to 1 5, respectively, in the suit. For conveuience, hereina{ter, the parties are referred to as they are arraved in the suit.

4. ]'he brief lacts of the case, shorn olf unnecessary details required for ad.iudication of the present Civil Revision Petition, are that thc plaintitts fllccl a suit in O.S.No.i54 ol 2013 against the det-endants seeking thc relief of declalation of title and conseqr:ential pet'lraneut injunction in respect ol the si-rit scl-redule 2 LNA, J CRP.No.3691 a|2023 \ property and also for cancellation of Gift Settlemerrt deeds executed in respect ofthe said property.

5. Pending adjudication of the said suit. plaintiffs filed an application vide IA.No.38l of 2023 to receive cenain docunrents mentioned in the petition. In the affidavit, 1'rled in suppoft of the said application. the plaintiff's averred that the documenrs sought to be received could not be traced at the time of hling of the suit and hence, ther could not be filed along r.r,ith the plaint. 'fhey fLrrthcr averred that the said documents are cmcial and relevant to prove their case and hence, prayed to allow the application

6. Sepalate counter-affidavits were liled by defendant Nos.1 to 3, and defendant No.15 opposing the said application. Defendant No.15 in his counter-affidavit stated that earlier, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.6 o1'2020 under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC to receive the documents and sanie was allowed, however, again. the plaintiffs filed the present application for receiving the additional documents only to cover up the defects and laches and to delay the proceedings: that the subject documents are sham documents and that the plaintiff's may be put to strict proof that the said documents coulrl noFtrq traced at the time of filing the suit and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the application I 3 LNA I CRP.No.3691aJ 2023

7. The trial Cor.rr1, atier l-realing both the parlies and on perusal o1'tlre record, disn'rissed the said application, r,ide impugned order dated 14.11 .2023. Challenging the said order, the present app lication is tr led.

8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/piaintiffs submitted that the trial Court has totally ignored the fact that the plaintifls submitted that the documents sougl.rt to be taken on record are crucial to prove their claim in the suit. He fiuther sLrbmitted tl.rat the trial Court failed to consider that for adjudicating the issues involved in the sr.ri1, the subject docurnents are necessary and as such, the trial Coult erred in disrrissir-rg the said application. thereby denying oppoltunity to the plaintiffs to rebut tl.re assertions made by learned counsel for defendant No.15. He fr.u'ther sr-rbrnitted that the trial Court clismissed the application on the ground that additional documents are produced at belated stage, whicl.r is contrary to Order VII Rule l4(3) CPC and by contending thr,rs, he prayed to allow the Revision Petition.

9. Per contra, lealned counsel lbr respondents Nos.1 to 3/ defendant Nos.1 to 3 submitted tl.rat the trial Coufi had rightly dismissed the application as the plaintifts lailed to explain sufficient 4 LNA, I CqP.No.3691 ol 2023 reasons for filing the documents at belated stage and that the said application was filed only to fill up the lacunae in their case and therefore, the irnpugned order is a well-reasoned one. He fiuther submitted that the petitioners/plaintitTir failed to point out an) irregularitl' of illegality in the impugned orcler and hence, the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

10. Lealnecl counsel 1br respondent No.I 5/delendant No. l5 submitted that the trial Court after due consideration of facts ar.rd the law has rightly disrnissed the application. He fufther' subrnitted that it is settled principle of law that ptaintifis have to furnish list of documents. on u'hich reliance is placed, when snit rvas instituted and the sarne should be marked during the course of recording evidence o1' behalf of the plaintiffs. however, in tl.re instant case. the plaintiffs have kept quiet for ten long l'ears after filing of the suit and came up with the present application onll' to plotract the litigation, uhich is not permissible, and hence, prayed to disn.riss thc Revision as the same is devoid of n.rerit.

11. Learned counsel for petitioners/plainti ffs in strpport of his aforesaid contentions and further, to demonstrate lhe scope and arnbit of Order VII l{ule l4(3) CPC, has relied upon the follou,ing .iudgnrents of the Hon'ble Apex Coufi:- 5 LNA, J CRP.No.3591 of 202i (i) Order, dated 17.05.2022, passed in Civil Appeal No,4096/2022 (Levaku Pedda Reddamma & others Vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma & another) (ii) Order, dated 10.08.2021, passed by this Court in CRP.Nos.630 & 632/2021 (Vandanapu @ Anumndla Rajamani @ Rajeshwari And Yedamakanti Jyothi Rani).

12. The categorical observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Levaku Peddt Reddamms's cas e (cited supra) extracted as hereunder:- "lt is well settled that rties of procedure are hand-maid of justice and, therefore, even if there is some delay, the trial Court should have imposed some costs rather than to decline the prodttction of the docuntents itself. "

13. Fr-rrther, this Court in ltandunopu 's case (cited supra) held as hereunder:- "The suit is at the stage of cross-examination of P.W. l. Tlte documents sought to be presented are extracts from the revenue records. They only reflect th.e entries in revenue records. Production of these documents does not impinge upon in any manner right of defence of defendants, Defendants can always call upon the plaintiff to prove the genuineness of the doczurlents. " 6 LNA, ) CRP.No.3691 of 2023

14. ln l-e'pnku Pedda ReddamnTo's cose (cited supra). the IIon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "even if there is some delay, the trial Court should have imposed some costs rather tlian to decline the production ol the documents itsell'.

15. Adverting to the said observation to the instant case, it is to be noted that the present application to receive the documents rvas trled ten years after filing of the suit, that too, after cross-examination ol P.W-l in pafi, therefore, the delay in tiling the applir'ation to receive the documents cannot be said to be "some delay'', u,hich is in t'act inordinate delay of ten years. Therefore, the said iudgment of the Hon'ble Suprerne Court is of no aid to the petitionerstplaintiffs.

16. 7n l,'andonopu's case (cited sLrpra). this Court observed that if production ol- the docirments does not inlpinge uporr in anv nrannL.l' the right oidef'ence of defendants. the sarne can be leceived and the defendants can always call upon the plaintil'f to prove the genuineness of the documents. The docr.urrents refelr..d to in the said case were revenue records, which are public documents.

17. However, in the case on hand, the petitioners/plaintiffs sought to receive original house rental receipts two in number, which are in fact\tOt public documents. Therefore, the said clocuments will 7 LNA, ,I CRP.No.3691 of 2023 detinitely impinge on the defer.rdants' case, that too, when the relief clair-ned ir-r the suit is tbr declaration of title ir-r respect of the suit schedule propefty. Therefbre, the said judgnrent has no application to the present case.

18. Perusal ofrecord would disclose that the documents sought to be received pertains to the period prior to filing of the suit in the year 2013, i.e., Original IT Retums (Nos.12) for the Assessment years 1998-1999 to 2013-14 and original house rental receipts, two in number. In sucl.r an event, the petitioners/plaintiffs except stating that the said documents could not be traced at the tirre of filing the suit, did not offel any plausible or con.rincing reason as to their unavailability or that they are not in possession of the sarne rvith them at the tirne of filing the suit. Presentation of additional documents after the plaint was tlled is not a lnatter of course. The plaintiffs have to explain the lelevancy of the said documents and sufficient reasons fol not liling the same at the time of filing of the suit, upon which, the Court while exercising its discletion looks into the nature of documents sought to be received, reasons assigned and genuineness of the claim and the stage of the suit and adjudicate accordingly. The petitioners/plaintiffs failed to satisfy the above requirernents. They have utterly failed to properly explain as to why 8 LNA, ) CRP.Na.3691af 2423 the documents sought to be received no\v are not liled at the tirne of filing of the suit and filed the present application afier cross- examination olP.W-1 in part, probably, as rightll,pointed out b1,the trial Courr. on considering the admission of P.\!'-L that defendant No.l was receiving the entire rents, onlv to fill up the lacunae and laches in their case

19. In this regard, it is apt to refer to the judgrlent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K.Velusamy Vs. N,Polanisamyt, wherein at para-19, it is observed as hereunder:- "l{e mat, acld a word of caution. The power urtder Section l5l or Ortler 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely, nterely for the asking. If so used, it tttilldefeat the ver.t: purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite trials. But where the application is found to be bona.fide and where the additional evidence, oral or docurnentary, wili assist the courl to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and tlle court is satisfied that non-production earlier was for valid and sdficient reasons, the court may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the f"esh evidence. But if it does so, it should ensure that the process does not become a protracting tactic. The court should firstly award appropriate costs to the other party to compensote for the delay. Se<'ondly, the court should take up and complete the case v,ithin a fixed time schedule so that the delay is avoided. Thirdly, if the ' 12orr1rr scc zzs 9 LNA J CRP.No,3691 of 2023 application is found to be mischievous, or frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with heavy costs ".

20. In the light of the aforesaid judgrnent and applying the ratio to the ir.rstant case. it is to be seen that the petitioners/plaintilfs lailed to give valid and sr.rfficient reasons to the satisfaction ol'tl.re Court as to whv the said documents were not filed along with the plaint and therefore, the petitioners/plaintiffs do not deserye any indulgence of this Colrrt.

21. Further, the petitioners/plaintiffs failed to project any exceptional circunlstances as to non-filing of the said documents at tl.re lime of filing of the suit and their relevancy to the issue/s to be adjudicated in the suit except that stating that the documents ale crucial and relevant to prove their case. Taking into account the totality of all these aspects, this Court comes to an ilresistible conclusion that the present application is filed by the plaintiffs only to fill up tl.re lacunae ar.rd laches in their case

2.2. In thc light of thc forcgoing discLrssion and reasons and also the settled legal position of larv, this Cor.rrt is of considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly declined to receive the 10 LN{ I CRP No.3691 of 2023 documents sought to be presented by the plaintiffs and dismissed the application. The revision petitioners failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed b1 the trial Coutt, "varranting interference by this Cor-rrt.

23. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

24. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pendir.rg, il any, shall stand closed. SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //-G- SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// to'",. an"Vlll Additional DistrictAnd Sessions Judge' Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar.

2. One CC to SRI CHUNAP ANVESH KIRAN Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to SRI NALLAMASU KRISHNA Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI NIZAMPUR CHANDRA SEKHAR Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CD CoPies MKN/ABK \k HIGH COURT DATED:1 11A712025 I ORDER CRP.No.3691 of 2023 .;,] - . 1_ \ I i, 30 T0t .,t i.\ f ':.,... .. \)_ i) .> CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISMISSED 1 coPfe'l Yl- frffi: