High Court · 2025

Business, R/o. H. No.3-'1-420, Raipura, Hanumakonda, Warangal. (Respondent Nos.3 to 13 are not necessary parties to this CRP) .,.RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 12lDEFENDANT NOS.2 TO 12 : I IA NO: 1 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 O.S.No'135 ol 2022 (Old O.S.No.152 ot 2012) on lhe file of the ll Additional District Judge, Warangal. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. NARENDAR JALLT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2 : SRI RAKESH SANGHI The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA CIVIL RE\/ISION PETITION No.4162 OF 2O2+ I Mr. Jalli Kanakaiah, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr'Narendar Jalli' Iearned counsel for the petitioner. Mohd. Fasihuddin, learned counsel for the respondent Nos l and 2' ORDER The Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order dated 3O.1O.2024 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Warangal, in I.A.No.274 of 2024 in O.S'No. 135 of 2022 (Old O.S.No. 152 of 2Ot2).

2. By the said order, the learned Trial Judge has allowed the I.A. filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ("the Act') for opinion . of Expert.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order should be set aside in view of an earlier application {iled by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 under section 45 of the Act being dismissed by the same learned Judge on 25.07.2024. Counsel further submits that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 sought to adduce expert evidence in respect of a Sale Deed dated 22.12.L968. It is also the submission that thc learned Juclge passed the impugned order 2 without referring to the earlier order of dismissai dated

25.07.2024.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 places the two applications filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the relief sought therein.

5. I have heard learned Senior Counsel and learned counsel appearing for the parties.

6. The respondent Nos.l and 2 herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.152 of 2012, which was re,numbered as O.S.No.135 of

2022. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 trave flled the Suit seeking declaration of title and for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property.

7. The Court further finds that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs filed an earlier application (I.A.No.43 of 20221 for sending the original Sale Deed d,ated 22.12.1968 to the Forensic Department for verifying the signatures of the vendors (Mr.Azgar Hussain and Mr.Bakar Hussain) and for comparison of signatures. This application was dismissed by the Trial Court by the docket order dated 25.07.2024 on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any pleading with regard to the auttrenticity of the simple SaJe Deed relied upon by the t I I l 3 petitioner/defendant No. 1 in the Suit. The application of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was dismissed also on the ground that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 failed to file any document to establish the foundational facts which were necessary for the relief prayed for i.e., for expert evidence with regard to the SaIe Deed dated 22.12.1968. The Trial Court was primarily of the view that the documents brought on record were disputed by the defendant No. I and'could not be considered as accepted signatures of I he vendors.

8. Compared to the above, the order dated, 3O.1O.2O24, impugned in the present Civil Revision petition, was for the specific prayer of the respondent Nos.l and 2lplaintiffs to send the documents dated 22.12.196g to the High Security printing Press, Nasik, for the examination of the date of issuance of the non-judicial stamp paper. The Trial Court allowed the application on the ground that the plaintiffs have specifically pieaded that the plaintiffs are the absorute owners of the schedule property and hence it is incumbent on the plaintiffs to prove its case including on the authenticity of the Sale Deed dated 22.12.1968. The Trial Court was further of the view that the plaintiffs should be given an opportunit5r to disprove the document filed by the defendants namely the SaIe Deed dated 22.12.t968. t ( . l i, :a l I g. It is evident from the above that the two I'As i'e'' I.A.No.43 of 2022 and I.A.No'27 4 of 2024 were filed for distinct and different reliefs. The fact that the two I'As relate to the same document, namely the Saie Deed dated 22' 12' 1968' would notbethedeterminingfactorsincetheprayersaretotally different. Second, the reasons given by the Trial Court that dismissing the earlier I.A. and allowing the later/present I'A are alsodistinctandindependentofeachother'Therefore'the sweeping submission that the learned Judge couid not have allowed the later I.A. after having dismissed the first I'A' does not have anY substance.

10. In any event, the impugned order dated 3O'|O'2O24 contains reasons. Hence, this does not find any ground to interferewiththesaidor<lerandparticularlythereasonsgiven therein.

11. C.R.P.No.4162 of 2024, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed' There sha1l be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- T. TIR ASSISTA T UMALA DEVI REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER \ To,

1. The ll Additional District Judge' Warangal ^. .^. i. O"" CC t" sri Narendar Jalli, Advocate (Ofy.gi. ;. o;; cc io sti Rakesh Sanghi' Advocate (OPUC) 4. Two CD CoPies Ks/gh w HIGH COURT DATED:0610'112025 ORDER CRP.No.4162 ot 2024 1tle SrArS 0 ? ri$ ?CI?5 v o ,\ -t DESpATU Dismissing the C.R.P without costs.