Civil Revision Petition No. 4653 of 2025 · The High Court · 2026

Judgment

4. Pathi Vanaja, W/o. Shyam Sunder Reddy, Age 43 years, Occ: Housewife, Rl/o. Venkairaopalle Village, Huzurabad Mandal, Karimnagar District' Pathi Akshaya Reddy, D/o. Shyam Sunder Reddy, Age: 17 years, Occ student, R/o. Venkatraopalle Village, Huzurabad Mandal, Karimnagar District. Pathi Sandeep Reddy, S/o. Shyam Sunder Reddy, Age 13 years, Occ student, Fyo. Venkatraopalle Village, Huzurabad Mandal, Karimnagar District. (respondent No,s. 2 and 3 being minors represented by their natural mother respondent No. 1 .) Pathi Laxmi, Wo. Raji Reddy, Age: 68 years, Occ: Household, F/o' Venkatraopalle Village, Huzurabad Mandal, Karimnagar District'

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. K. Venumadhav Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. P. Rajagopal Reddy CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4666 oI 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia aE ;rieved by the order dated 24-11-2025 passed in 1.A.No.474 ol 2025 in O.S.No.77 r f 2016 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, at Huzurabad. Between:

1. Danda Venkateshwar Reddy, S/o. Prabhu Reddy, I ge: 60 years, Occ Agriculture, Fl/o. Pidisilla presently residing at C/o. Var;r rdeva Medical Shop, Opposite More Market, Circuit house road, Hanmakondil District.

2. Danda Laxmi, W/o. Venkateshwar Reddy, Age: 57 y,; 115, Occ Household, Fl/o. Pidisilla presently residing at C/o. Vasudeva M()( ical Shop, Opposite More Market, Circuit house road, Hanmakonda District.

3. Danda Vijender Reddy, S/o Pradhu Reddy, Age:57 y,l rrs, Occ: Contractor, Ryo. Pidisilla presently residing at C/o. Kalyani Gold t hop, Opposite More Market, Vikasnagar, hanmakonda District.

4. Danda Vijaya, W/o. Veijender Reddy, Age: 49 years, ()cc: Household, R/o. Pidisilla presently residing at C/o. Kalyani Gold Shop, (l rposite More Market, Vikasnagar, Hanmakonda Diskict. AND '1 . Pathi Vanaja, W/o. Shyam Sunder Reddy, Age 43 y::rs, Occ: Housewife, ...Petitioners/P,: itioners/Defendants R/o. Venkatraopalle Village, Huzurabad Mandal, Karimrr rgar District.

2. Pathi Akshaya Reddy, D/o. Shyam Sunder Reddy, Age: 17 years, Occ Student, R/o. Venkatraopalle Village, Huzurabad Mand I , Karimnagar District. 3. Pathi Sandeep Reddy, S/o. Shyam Sunder Reddy, Age 13 years, Occ Student, Fl,/o. Venkatraopalle Village, Huzurabad Mandz i, Karimnagar District. (respondent No's. 2 and 3 being minors represented I / their natural mother respondent No. 1.) 4. Pathi Laxmi, Wio. Raji Reddy, Age: 68 years, ,:;c: Household, Rl/o. Venkatraopalle Village, Huzurabad Mandal, Karimnagar District. ...Respondents/Fk spondents/Plai ntiffs l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circrrr lstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may t,r pleased to stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 77 of 2016 on the file of Hon'b : senior Civil Judge at Huzurabad Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. K. Venumadhav Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. P. Rajagopal Reddy CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4677 of 2O25 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia rggrieved by the order dated 24-11-2025 passed in 1.A.No.476 of 2025 in O.S.No.t' of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, at Huzurabad. Between:

1. Danda Venkateshwar Reddy, Sio. Prabhu Reddy, Age: 60 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Pidisilla presently residing at C/o. Vasudeva Medical Shop' Opposite More Market, Circuit house road, Hanmakonda Diskict.

2. Danda Laxmi, W/o. Venkateshwar Reddy, Age: 57 years, Occ Household, R/o. Pidisilla presently residing at Cio. Vasudeva Medical Shop, Opposite More Market, Circuit house road, Hanmakonda District.

3. Danda Vijender Reddy, S/o Pradhu Reddy' Age:57 years, Occ: Contractor, Riio. Pidisilla presently residing at C/o. Kalyani Gold Shop, Opposite More Market, Vikasnagar, hanmakonda District-

4. Danda Vijaya, Wio. Veiiender Reddy, Age: 49 years, Occ: Household, Fl/o' Pidisilla presently residing at C/o. Kalyani Gold Shop, Opposite More Market, Vikasnagar, Hanmakonda District. ...Petitioners/Petitioners/Defendants AND Rl/o. Venkatraopalle Village, Huzurabad Mandal, Karimnagar District'

1. Pathi Vanaja, Wo. Shyam Sunder Reddy' Age 43 years, Occ: Housewife, 2. Pathi Akshaya Reddy, D/o. Shyam Sunder Reddy, Age: 17 years' Occ Student, R/o. Venkatraopalle village, Huzurabad Mandal, Karimnagar District. 3. Pathi Sandeep Reddy, S/o. Shyam Sunder Reddy, Age 13 years' Occ Student, Fl/o. Venkakaopalle Village, Huzurabad Mandal, Karimnagar District. (respondent No's. 2 and 3 being minors represented by their natural mother respondent No. 1 .) +. patni Laxmi, Wo. Raji Reddy, Age: 68 years, Occ: Household, Fl/o' Venkatraopalle Village, Huzurabad Mandal, Karimnagar District' ..Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiffs Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. K. Venumadhav Counsel forthe Respondents: Mr. P' Rajagopal Reddy The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANIi AT TTYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUK]\ RAMJI CML REVISION PETITION Nos.4653 4656 and ,I >77 of 2025 DATE: 27.o2.2026 Between: Danda Venkateshwar Reddy and 3 others. Pathi Vanaja and 3 others. AND ORDER: ...Petitione r s/ Defendants ...Responcr nts / Plaintiffs These Civil Revision Petitions are iled by the petitioners/ defendants challenging the commor orders dated

24.11.2025 passed in I.A. Nos. 474, 475 and 476 tf 2025 in O.S No. 77 of 2016 on the file of the learned Ser j rr Civil Judge, Huzurabad

2. Since the issues involved in these revisior petitions arise out of the same suit between the same rr rrties and are interconnected, they were heard together and at't being disposed of by this common order. 2

3. Heard Mr. K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the revlslon petitioners/defendalts, and Mr. p. Rajgopat Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/ plaintiffs.

4. C.R.P. No. 4666 of 2O2S is directed against the order in I.A. No. 474 of 2025 seeking reopening of the plaintiffs,evidence. C.R.P. No. 4677 of 2025 challenges the order in I.A. No. 476 of 2025 filed to receive certain documents. C.R.p. No. 4653 of 2025 assails the order in I.A. No. 475 of 2025 seeking recall ol pW. I for further examination.

5. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that, the O.S. No. 77 of 2016 was instituted by the plaintiffs seeking declaration of title over the suit schedule property and consequential perpetual injunction against the defendants. At the stage when the suit was posted for arguments, the plaintiffs filed the aforesaid interlocutory applications seeking (i) reopening of evidence, (ii) reca-ll of PW. 1, and (iii) reception of additional documents, i.e., the charge sheet in C.C. No. 817 of 2015 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad, and the deposition of the mother of the petitioner recorded therein. The trial Court, upon consideration, dismissed the applications observing that they were filed at a belated stage J_ without satisfactory explanation ald that the documents sought 3 to be introduced could have been frled at the ap1 ropriate stage during trial.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners sub nits that the documents sought to be produced are r€ I )vant to the adjudication of the issues in the suit, particularJl in r.iew of the specific reference to the suit schedule propertv n the criminal proceedings. It is contended that the questio c of proof and evidentia5r value of such documents would ali ;e only at the stage of appreciation of evidence axd not at tL( stage of their reception. It is further submitted that, as the rr atter is still at the stage prior to f,rnal adjudication, the plaint i fs ought to be afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to pl rce all relevant material before the Court in order to substant ate their case. Hence, interference of this Court is sought

7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 tr, 3 submits that the trial Court rightly exercised its discretion n rejecting the applications, particularly in the absence of a pr( per explanation for the delay. It is further contended that the retitioners were not parties to the criminal proceedings zurd t hat f,rndings 1n criminal cases are not binding on cit/il courts. , t is also argued that the proposed documents cannot be prov,: I through PW. 1 4 arrd that the exercise sought would only delay the proceedings. Accordingly, dismissa-l of the revision petitions is prayed for.

8. I have perused the material available on record 9 . The petitioners seek to place on record documents arising out of criminal proceedings allegedly pertaining to the same subject matter and to reca_ll PW. I for further examination in that regard. It is undisputed that the applications were hied at a belated stage, when the suit was posted for arguments. The afhdavits hled in support of the applications do not furnish a detailed explanation for the delay.

10. Hou,ever, it is equally well settled that procedural rules are handmaids of justice and that the Court, in exercise of its discretion under the Code of Civil Procedure, may permit reopening ol evidence or reception of additional documents if such course is necessar5r for effective adjudication of the real issues in controversy, provided that no irreparable prejudice is caused to the opposite party. At the stage of receiving documents, the Court is not required to adjudicate upon their evidentiary value or conclusively determine their admissibility; those aspects cal be considered at the stage of appreciation of 5 evidence. Mere reception of documents does no1 automatically amount to their pr-oof. 1 1. In the present case, as the suit is one for <l :claration ald injunction and is pending since the yeat 2016, affording one hnal opportunity to the plaintiffs to place relevir rt material on record, subject to appropriate safeguards, woulr subserve the ends ofjustice.

12. Having regard to the above circumstances, his Court is of the considered view that one opportunity ought t r be granted to the petitioners. Accordingly, the impugned orde t s are set aside and the interlocutory applications are allowed.

13. However, considering that the applications were filed at a belated stage, thereby causing inconvenience to rhe respondents and protracting the proceedings, the petitioner:; shall pay costs of Rs. 1O,OOO/- to the contesting respondents before the trial Court as a condition for reopening the evidenr e and receiving the documents.

14. Further, as the suit is of the year 2016, t re trial Court is directed to frame a specific schedule for examir ation of witness and for completion of further evidence. The par ies shall strictly adhere to the schedule and ensure expeditior-t, disposal of the 6 suit. It is made clear that the respondents shall be at liberty to raise a.ll objections regarding admissibility, relevancy, and proof of the documents sought to be introduced, at the appropriate

15. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs in these revision petitions Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// sit- e.v.s.pRasno EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civrl Judge. at Huzurabad - -\ ., 2. One CC to Mr. K. Venumadhav, Advocate [OPUC]- 3 One CC to Mr P. Rajagopal Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies Kam'l'S L Yx HIGH COURT DATED: 2710212026 COMMON ORDER c o * CRP.Nos.4653, 4666 and 4677 o 1l.iE STrl 1 J FIIt 112[ -z OF sPA'T rJ f DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS 6 "e(A"\6, a;gs