Kapil Kumar Sharma v. Lalit Kumar Sharma and a notherr

Sanaka.Sridhar, S/o Late Sri Sanaka.Haranath, Age of 49, Occ. Private Employee, Rl/o. H.No.1-3-176141G12, Padmasahali Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad, 500080. ...Petitioner AND 1 . Sanaka Anil Kumar, S/o Late Sri Sanaka Harinath, Age of 52, Occ. Not Known, Rl/o H. No. 'l -3-176l4lclzA, Padmashali Colony, Tallabasti, Gandhi' Nagar, Hyderabad.

2. Smt. Sanaka Ratna Kumari, Wo Sanaka Anil Kumar, Age of 45 years, Occ. Not Known, Rl/o H. No. 1-3-176l4lcl2A, Padmashali Colony, Tallabasti, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad.

3. Sanaka Chiranjeevi, S/o Sanaka Anil Kumar, Aged about 18 years, Occ. Student, Fl/o H. No. 1-3-176l4lcl2A, Padmashali Colony, Tallabasti, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad. a

4. Sanaka Harish, S/o Sanaka Anil Kumar, Aged about lT years, Occ. Student, Rl/o H. No. 1-3-176l4lcl?A, Padmashali Colony, Tallabasti, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad. (Respondent 3 and_4 are being minors representing by their next friend and Natural Guardian 2no Petitioner (Mother). ...Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the : 'cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour may be pleased to stay the further proceedings of the suit with Vide Order dated. 1911112025 passed in lA No.773 of 2025 lN OS No.1056 of 2017 whi: r is pending before XXVI Chief Judge, City Civil Court, At Hyderabad until d s cosal of the above CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.ACHUT RAMA SHASTRY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI MODALI ESWARA PRA!; \D The Cou( made the following: ORDER I -------v l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4364 of 2025 DATE OF ORDER: 31.12.2025 Between: Sanaka Sridha r, S/o. Late Sri Sanaka Haranath, Age of 49, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H.No. 1-3 -17614/G/2, Padmasahali Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad - 500080. AND Petitioner Sanaka Anil Kumar, S/o. Late Sri Sanaka Haranath, Age of 49, Occ: Not Known and others. Respondents ORDER: Heard Mr. P.Achut Rama Shastry, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Modali Eswara Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging r - the order dated 19.11.2025, in LA.No.773 of 2O2i n O.S.No.1056 of 2017, passed by the learned XXVI Additional (. ief Judge, City Civil Court, Hydera bad.

3. Vide the impugned order; the Trial Cour. dismissed the I.A.No.773 of 2025 preferred by the petitioner unde Order VII Rule 14(1) read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure I rde, 1908 (for short 'CPC') seeking to receive the documents irr support of his evid ence.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for t re petitioner is that vide I.A.No.773 of 2025 the petitioner tried tc lring on record around 22 documents relevant for adjudication of tr : dispute, more particularly a strong piece of evidence in his favc,r r, but the Trial Court refused the same vide the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitione4 in s Jpport of his contentions, relied upon the following decisions: 1) Kapil Kumar Sharma vs. Lalit Kumar Sharma and a notherr 2) Pradeep Bailey vs. Gilma Daniel2 ' (ZOtg) t+ Supreme Court Cases 612 '? cuqMl tsoolzoz3 & cM AppL. 47g44tzo2g srAY

6. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the LA. filed by the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the Trial Court, more particularly for the reason that the petitioner has not given any plausible explanation for having not produced these 22 documents earlier in the course of proceedings of the suit before the Trial Court. He further contended that the petitioner already in the year 2024, before the evidence commenced, had moved I.A.No.667 of 2024 wherein voluminous documents were sought to be brought on record and which was allowed by the Trial Couft. Even at that point of time the petitioner did not think it proper for producing these 22 documents, and now after the evidences of both the parties are closed, in order to improve upon his case has moved the present I'A. seeking for receiving of the 22 documents.

7. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, undoubtedly the suit is one which has been filed I by the petitioner seeking for declaration of title and possession. The suit was filed in the year 20L7 and the suit has now reached its fag end i.e. it is posted for arguments of the parties. It is at this stage vide I.A.No.773 of 2O25, which is filed on 24.O4.2025, the petitioner seeks to bring on record the documents r support of his eviden ce.

8. At the outset, this Court is not inclined to e I ertain this Civil Revision Petition for the reason that, firstly, there rl res not seem to be any plausible explanation provided by the petiti )ner as to what prevented him in obtaining the copies earlier ar 1 relying upon them as his evidence in support of .his claim. Secor r ly, there is also no explanation provided as to why these docu I ents were not produced when the petitioner earrier fired volumi" rus documents vide I.A.No.667 of 2024 and which stood allowed. I rirdly, from the conduct of the petitioner it appears that it is nothinc but to protract the proceedings and also is an attempt made for nproving upon his case after the evidence of the parties was clos: j in the course of trial. Lastly, the reference of any of these 22 dc:uments which the petitioner is trying to bring on record is not the -e in pleadings of the petitioner either in the plaint or in any of th€ tpplication and neither is there any reference of these doct nents in the petitioner's evidence.

9. In the given factual circumstances of the case, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner at this belated stage cannot be permitted to fill up the lacunas of the evidence after the evidence of the parties is recorded. Such applications can be entertained in a given case only in the event if a strong case is made out. In the instant case, except for inability of the petitioner in obtaining the copies of these documents, there does not seem to be any good reason available with him for having not made an attempt earlier.

10. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioner calling for an interference to the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. The present Civil Revision Petition thus fails, and is accordingly, dismissed.

11. As a sequel. miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs /. N. SRIHARI REGISTRAR I D //TRUE COPY// E ON OFFICER To,

1. The XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad' 2. One CC to SRI P. ACHUT RAMA SHASTRY, Advocdte [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI MODALI ESWARA PRASAD, Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies JKS NVB/Sa t I t HIGH COURT DATED:31 11212025 ..': 'Jr: Til. {..$' s' % t? .D l.L 'L'- 1 *- t ORDER CRP.No.4364 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PE'I'TION K5 \z f ,l>e