The High Court · 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 of O.S.No.929 of 2022 on the file of ll Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda pending disposal of the CRP. Counset for the Petitioner: SRI S.PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI CH-MANICHARAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3: NONE APPEARED The Gourt made the following: ORDER .,-t I I I I I I i , i i I i HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ,ALTSHETTY CRP.No.3980 of 2024 ORDER.. This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated

04.09.2024 in I.A.No.526 of 2024 in O.S.No.929 of 2022 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda, whereunder the application liled by ttre revision petitioner under Order VIII Rule I A(3) CPC seeking leave of the Court to receive the documents was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri S.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counscl fbr the revision petitioner and Sri Ch.Manicharan, learned counsel for respondent No.l.

3. The revision petitioner is defendant No.3, responclent No.l is plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein are deti:ndant Nos.l and2, respectively, in the suit.

4. The succinct facts of the case are that respondent No.l filed suit in oS.No.929 of 2022 for grant of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property and also for cancellation of GPA bearing document No.3268/20r3, dated 1g.04.2013, against respondent Nos.l and 2 herein and the revision petitioner. T.he i; , ! I i i I i : : i I I i 2 LNA, J CRP.No.3980 of 2024 revision petitioner entered appearance and fited his written statement denying the plaint averrnents, issues were framed, evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was concluded and as defendant No.l was set ex parte, the evidence on behalf of defendant No.2 was recorded and was concluded. When the rnatter was posted for evidence of the revision petitioner/defendant No.3, the revision petitioner filed the present application to receive certain documents, which are as follows:- (i) Original registered sale deed dated 12.06.1989 bearing No.5348 of 1989 (ii) Original registered GPA dated 18.04.2013 bearing No.3268 of 2013 (iii) Original registered sale deed dated 03.06.2013 bearing No.4267 of 2013 (iv) Original registered sale deed dated 23.01.2014 bearing No.227 of20t4 and (v) certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate dated 24.04.2024.

5. The respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff filed counter resisting the said application.

6. The trial Court, considering the pleadings and contentions put forth by both the parties, vide impugned order dismissed the said application with an observation that the revision petitioner has \ I i t i I I j ) I I J LNA, J CRP.No.3980 of 2024 assigned only casual ground that the documents mentioned therein were not available with him. Challenging the same, the present Revision is filed.

7. Learnecl counsel for the revision petitioner subrlitted that the trial Court, without considering the fact that the docurnents sought to be taken on record are refen'ed to in the written statement and in fact, they are not new documents, has erroneously dismissed the application. He funher submitted that the documents l)ow sought to be taken on record are crucial and necessary tbr proper adjudication of the suit, since the said documents include original GPA dated 18.04.2013 bearing No.3268 of 201-i, which was sought to be cancelled by the plaintiff in the suit. He fufther subrnitted that no prejudice would be caused to respondent No.1 if the application to receive the documents is allowed arrtl in fact, it would onlv ai<I the trial Court in proper adjudication ol'rhe matter.

8. In support of his contentions, learned counsel lor revision petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Levuku Pedda Reddamma and others vs. Gottumukkala venkata subbamma and others,I wherein it is held that the relevancygf the documents can be examined by the trial Court on r 1 t,tRtrt u/sc/o g LS I zoz2 , 1' i I 4 LNA, J CRP.No.3980 of 202a the basis of the evidence to be led, but to deprive a party to the suit not to file documents even if there is sorne detay will lead to denial ofjustice Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 subrnitted that no proper reasons have been shown by the petitioner for the delay in filing the documents, therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application. He further subrnitted that Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC specifically states that the det'endant has to file documents on which he is relying upon, along with the written statement and if such documents satne are not in possession or power of defendant, he shall state the person who has possession of the same.

8.1. He funher submitted that in the present case, the revision petitioner has not stated as to in whose possession the said documents are, if the same were not in his possession at the time of filing written statement and therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner, and that as no grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned order, he prayed to dismiss the Revision. . _=.-JY 5 LNA, J CRP.No.3980 of 2024

9. Perusal of impugned order shows that the application filed by the revision petitioner was dismissed by the trial (lourt on the sole ground that no proper reasons have been assigned by the rel'ision petitioner to receive the documents.

10. A bare scrutiny of the affidavit filed by the revision petitioner in support of the application goes to show tl'rat the docurnents now sought to be taken on record are rel'erred to in the written staternent Hence, obviously, the revision petitioner is not seeking to take on record any new documents which are not bein_e mentioned by him in the written statement. Further, this Court f-rnds some rnerit in the case of the revision petitioner that the documents llow sought to be taken on record are crucial and necessary fbr adjudication of matter, since the said documents include GPA 1 \ bearing No.3268 of 2013 dated 18.04.2013, which is sought to be \ cancelled by the plaintiff in the suit. I 1. Having regard to the above facts of the case and for the foregoing reasons coupled with the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Levaku Pedda Reddamma's case (cited supra), this court is of considered opinion that the revision petitioner cannot be deprived of filing the said doctrments even if I 6 r-, LNA, J CRP.No.3980 of 2024 there is some delay, as rejection of the relief sought for by him would lead to denial ofjustice.

12. Accordingly, this Court holds that the trial court has erred in exercising the discretion vested in it and erroneously passed the impugned order dismissing the application.

13. [n the result, Revision is allowed and the order dated

04.09.2024 in I.A.No.526 of 2024 in O.S.No.929 of 2022 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda, is hereby set aside and consequently, IA.No.526 of 2024 stands allowed. 1,4. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. SD/. A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR & SECTION OFFICER I //TRUE COPY// To, Kushaiguda.

1. The lll Additional senior civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri 2. One CC to Sri S.prabhakar Reddy, Advocate IOPUCI 3. one CC to Sri Ch.Manicharan, A,irlo"ii"ioFtj6t - -, 4. Two CD Copies NVB/PSLI District at /- HIGH COURT DATED i2310712025 ORDER CRP.No.3980 of 2A24 1t-{E S14 o m e).\ * o r..T t ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION b $