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 Ji"p.n"" with in fiting Cb of decree copy dated 26111t2O24 passed in lA 4241 2O24inOSglt2O24byPrincipalSeniorCivilJudge,Nizamabad,pendingCRP' lA NO:2 OF 2024 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 OS 9112014 on the file of the orders dt26111l2O24 passed in lA 424/2024 by Principal Senior Judge, Nizamabad, pending disposal Of CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. K. M Mahender Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared. The Court made the following: ORDER ,,:. l t I I 1 ,i l , { ,i I .i ]l 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N' TUKARAMJT CTvIL REVISION PETITIO N No.4095 of 2o.24 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been frled challenging the propriety of the order dated 26'lL'2O24 passed in I.A. No 424 ol 2024 in O'S' No'91 of 2Ol4 on the file of the iearned Principal Senior Civil Judge' Nizamabad 2 Heard Mr. K.M.Mahender Reddy' learned counsel for the revision petitioner' In spite of due notice' the respondents did not choose to appear'

3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the revision petitioner/defendant No'2 has hled the petition under Order VII Rule 14 of C'P'C' with a prayer to receive the document hled along with the petition i'e'' pattedar passbook bearing No'X-117286 issued by the Tahsildar, Dichpally Mandal' Nizamabad District' It has been pleaded that the document was recently traced out during the search and the said document is relevant for proper adjudication of the issues in the srift- '- rt ..,_;' --t, .t -, - .-..::r' ..- \'...- 2 and receiving will not prejudice the interests of the other side. Hence, prayed for receiving of the document.

4. Respondent No.1/plaintiff in the counter opposed petition and contested that no explanation is offered as to how the document is relevant, that apart, the particulars are at variance with the description mentioned in the written statement. Therefore, in the absence of the pleadings, the document canrot be proved, hence prayed for dismissal. 5' 'lhe trial court, by considering the submissions and by noting that the reason offered for the delay in filing the document is not convincing and the pattedar passbook document intended to be filed is at variance to the pass book and patta numbers mentioned in the written statement. Further, no proper reason was set out for non-filing of the document along with the written statement, dismissed the petition.

6. Learned counsel for the revrslon petitioner submits . that in the written statement the facts of purchasing the .t:nr' . i Ii l t; I :l Tr i t I i t J relevant property under the registered sale deed by his father and issuance of pattedar passbook by the Revenue Authority in the name of his father has been pleaded' however after the demise of his father' his name was mutated and the pattedar passbook/intended document was issued. As such, it is relevant document and supported by relevant pleading' However' the trial Court failed to appreciate these aspects and merely noted that the serial numbers of the document are not analogous with the pleadings in the written statement' He further asserts that the explanation offered for non-frling of the document is genuine and merely on the denial' the trial Court erroneously held that the explanation offered to receive the document is not convincing' Thus' prayed for intervention and to extend an opportunity to place the document on record' 7 I have perused the material on record

8. In these determination pleas the asPect that arises for is, whether the imPugned order'- G . sustainable in the facts of the law? 4 9 As per the revision petitioner/ defendant No.2 . the document intended to be placed on record is pattedar passbook issued by the Tahsildar in his favour covering the suit schedule property. The suit liled by the respondent No.1/plaintiff is for declaration of title and recovery of possession. He admits that in the written statement issuance of a pattedar passbook in the name of his lather has been pleaded, however, after the demise of his father, pattedar passbook was issued in his favour and the same has not been stated as it was issued after institution of the suit. The date of issuance of the document i.e., pattedar passbook on 06.11.2014, is supporting this fact.

10. Having regard to the pleading that the document could not be hled along with the written statement and the same was misplaced, though it appears to be a routine plea, as rightly pointed out except for the denial no other material has been made out in record bv the No. 1/plaintiff to consider that the . respondent i l,t{-.-,-z' !i;r--:117 I I 5 explanation offered by the revision petitioner/defendant No.2 was witl^ mala fide intention. 1 1 . Be that as it may, as per the revision petitioner/defendant No.2 and by the observation in the impugned order, it is evident that the suit is at the stage of defendants' evidence and receiving documents on to record cannot be equated with admission of the document into evidence and the receipt of document would be subject to relevancy and proof of the document' Considering this aspect and as no advised move or mala fide intention is found in belated submission of the document and the suit is before primary forum and extending an opportunity to petitioner/defendant No'2 to place their entire case so as revision to holistically determine all issues between the parties the court below ought to have positively exercised its jurisdiction.

12. Having regard to these aspects, this Court deems it fit to intervene in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the ]i I I I I I I I I +. 6 trial Court is directed to receive the document on to fiie, subject to proof and relevancy. 1 3. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 26.71.2024 passed in I.A. No.424 of 2024 in O.S. No.91 of 2OI4, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad. No order as to costs. As a sequel, misceilaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. T. JAYASREE DEPUTY REGISTRAR sEc N OFFICER To, 1 2 3 The Principal Senior Judge, Nizamabad One CC to Sri. K M frrlahender Reddy Advocate [OpUC] Two CD Copies MKN/gh Qt- t I I I i I I HIGH COURT DATED:0410312025 ORDER CRP.No.4095 of 2024 1 ti: i ;,., /A c (( ( o -) 15 SEP 2025 1, , Qc ,''''tt-);:" \ \r r.I // CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS ALLOWED. (u ls s u) l I i I I I I i l i ! I l l