The High Court · 2025

...Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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.121 ol 2015 on the file of Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Devarakonda pending disposal of this Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Sri G. Giri Kumar The Cou( made the following: ORDER 7 .,] HON'BLE IJRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVILL REVISION PETITON N ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated. 07.11.2023 in I.A.No.661. of 2023 in O.S.No.121 of 2015 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Devarakonda. 2 Heard l}'i K.Viyaya Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner ancl Sri G.Giri Kumar, learned counsel for respcndents

3. The pe'Litioner herein is the plaintiff and tesponderrt Nos.1 to 3 herein ar,e the defendant Nos.3 to 5 before the trial Court. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in tht: suit.

4. Brief fac ts relevant for adjudication of the pres,:nt Civil Revision Petition are that plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.fJo.121 of 2015 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge at Devaral:onda for partition ancl separate possession against the defendants in respect of suit schedule properties. After service of sumrnons, the defendant Nos.1,3,4 & 5 entered appearance and filed written ( t 2 LN).J cRP No 3874 oJ2023 statement denying the claim of the plaintiff; that the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was closed and when the matter was coming up for the evidence of defendants side, defendant Nos.3 to 5, who are the respondents herein, filed an application under Order MI Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC alde I.A.No.661 of 2023 to leceive the documents on record viz., registered will deed bearing document No.7/2015, dated 1,4.09.2015; ROR 1-B dated

07.07.2015 standing in the name of deceased defendant No.1; ROR 1-B dated 07.07.2015 standing in the name of deceased Kinnera Ramulu; reply notice of the defendants 3 to 5 dated

07.07.201,5 and the returned cover of plaintiff. In the said application, defendants contended that said documents sought to be taken on record are public documents and no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff i{ the same are taken on record 5 The plaintiff resisted the application by filing a detailed counter affidavit and a specific plea was taken that will deed dated 14.09.2015 is a fabricated and created one and that there is no whisper about the same in the written statement filed by the defendants. t :-7 3 LNA,J CRP t'.'3871oJ2023

6. The trial Cottt aide impugned order dated 0'.7|172023 allowed the application with an observation that when ttLer matter was coming ttp for further evidence of defendants, the defendants filed the above documents to receive on record. and as those docume,nts are public documents, the same can be received on record an<l mere receiving the documents camot confer any right and mc,reover, the plaintiff having opportunity :o cross- examine the vritnesses on the said documents

7. Learnerl counsel for the petitioner/ plaintiff had cc,ntended that trial Court erroneously allowed the application rvithout considering tJre specific objection taken by the defendants that there is no wJrisper or mention about the will deed and t,hat the same is createrd one during the pendency of the suit pro,:eedings and on this ground alone, the impugned order of the trial (lourt is liable to be seI aside. Learned counsel for plaintiff relied upon the decisions in Smt. Gollu Satyavathi and others v. Kilaparthi Appa Rao and othersl and IWs. Lakshmi Priya Exports (India) ' 2018 (1) ALT so3 4 LNA J CRP No 3874 of 202 3 Pvt Ltd. V. Ws.Ramalingam Mills Ltd., and another2 in support of his contention.

8. Per contra,learned counsel for respondents/ defendants had contended that the trial Court has rightly allowed the application since the documents sought to be taken on record are in fact public documents and has rightly observed by the trial Court that the plaintiff has an opportunity to cross-examine the wihresses in respect of the said documents. It is further contended that in paragraph-S of the written statement, there was a specific reference to the will deed executed by Kinnera Venkamma Therefore, the contention that there is no reference to the will deed in the written statement is factually incorrect and finally, contended that there is no merit in the present Revision Petition and no grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned order of the trial Court and hnally, prayed to dismiss the Revision Petition.

9. Perusal of the record would disclose that plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession and the defendant '? zoto iz; nlt s:z 7 I I 5 LNA,J CRP t\ ).3874 of 202J Nos.l, 3, 4 & 5 filed written statement denying the clairn of the plaintiff. There is a' specific reference in paragraph-S of the written siaternent that " Kinnera Venkamma alreadr.l made n ruill in faaour of her lceloaed grandsons in regard" to the property sttnding in her name and .further made a will in regard to the share of thc property to be acquired in succession for the death of her only son lat,z Kinnera Rarnulu." Therefore, the principal contention raised by the petitioner/ plain tiff that there is no whisper in the written statement ancl that will deed is a fabricated and created cne after filing the suit is contrary to the record. In fact, wili deed is a registered dor:ument and, therefore, the contention that 1he same is created, fabricated subsequent to filing of the suit carrnot be countenanccd. Further, the documents sought to be l:iled are public docurrrents except reply notice ahd, therefore, as rightly observed bV the hial Court, plaintiff can cross-exanrine the witnesses in respect of the said documents sought to be i.aken on record

10. In vien, of above discussion, in considered opinior-r of this Court, the trial Court was justified in allowing the I.A.No.661 of 6 LNA,J CRP No.3874 ol2023 ('t 2023 and the petitioners have failed to make out any case warranting interference of this Court with the impugned order dated07.11.2023 passed by rhe rrial Court.

11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPYII ASSI S d/- MoHD. tsMAtL ANT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Junior Civil Judge, Devarakonda 2. One CC to Sri K. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to Sri G. Giri Kumar, Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CD Copies kam/gh HIGH COURT DATED:0 510212025 ORDER CRP.No.3874 ot 2023 -4-.-'==: $i Ji ( c- o L) z o .6 a I b l;l'\ 2[6 D r:q ;) 1' DISMISSING OF THE GIVIL REVISION PETITION ,l)