The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. M Anjaiah, S/o. Late. Veeraiah, Aged about 55 years, Occ'upation : Agriculture, R/o. {l-1-243, Shaikpet, Hyderabad ... Revision t)etitioner/Petitioner

...RespondenUDefendant

2. J.

6. lVl.Saraswathi, W'o Late lt/l.Anjaiah, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Housewife. M.Praveen Kumar , S/o. Late M.Anjaiah, Aged about 42 yr:ars, Occ . Business. M.Ganesh Kumar , S/o. Late M.Anjaiah, Aged about 35 years, Occ . Business. M.Shravan Kumar, S/o Late M.Anjaiah, Aged about 30 yt-'ars, Occ. Business. Smt. D. Sudharari, Wo. Venkat Rao, D/o. Late M.Anjaiah, Aged about 38 years, Occ . Hous,ewrfe (RespondenUDefendants No.2 to 6 are R/o H.No.8-1-242, shaikpet, Hyderabad) ... Proposed Resporrdents/Defendants IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 15'l 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 the proceedings in oS No.928 of 2008 on the file of XIII Adlitional District and sessions judge, Ranga lleddy District, at LB Nagar pending the Revision petition, petition in the above circumstances of the case. I CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 6699 OF 20'18 Petition under Article 227 of the constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order dated 04-10-2018 Passed in l.A.No.'1008 of 2018 in O.S. No.92B of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Xlll Additional District and Sessions Judge, at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. Between: Y Ambraiah, S/o. Bhadrappa, Aged about 54 years, Occupation. Govt. Service, R/o.G-3, Telecom Staff Quarters, Kandaswamy Lane, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. AND 1 M Anjaiah, S/o. Late. Veeraiah, Aged about 55 years, Occupation : Agriculture, Rlo. 8-1-243, Shaikpet, Hyderabad ... Revision Petitioner .. RespondenUDefendant M.Saraswathi, Wo. Late M.Anjaiah, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Housewife. 2 3. M.Praveen Kumar , S/o. Late M.Anjaiah, Aged about 42 years, Occ... Business-

4. [\/.Ganesh Kumar, S/o. Late tt/.Anjaiah, Aged about 35 years, Occ Business.

5. M.Shravan Kumar, S/o. Late tVl.Anjaiah, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Business.

6. Smt. D. Sudharani, Wo. Venkat Rao, D/o. Late M.Anjaiah, Aged about 38 years, Occ . Housewife (RespondenUDefendants No.2 to 6 are R/o H.No.8-1-242, shaikpet, Hyderabad) ... Proposed Respondents/Defendants IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bg pleased to stay all the proceedings in OS No.92B of 2008 on the file of Xlll Additional district and session judge, Ranga Reddy district, at L.B.Nagar, pending the revision petition, petition in the above circumstance of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners in all CRPs :Sri B Shanker Counsel for the Respondents in all CRPs : Sri AIi Faraz Farooqui The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER t I ") THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SI'JANA CwIL REVISION PETITION Nos.6855,6a56 e 6699|2OLA COMMON ORDER: Since the parties and lis involved in these revision petitions are same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. In all the three matters, the revision cetitioner. .is plaintiff ancl respondents are defendants, in OS.No.928 of 2OO8. In the said O.S., the revision petitioner liled IA.No. 1007 2018 under Order VII Rule 14 read.with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (for short CPCJ with a prayer to receive documents and also hled IA,No. 10O8 of 2018 under Order XVIII Rule 17 praying to recall PW.l for marking of documents. IA.No. 10O6 of 2Ol8 was also filed b5. him with a prayer to reopen the case for submitting plaintiff arguments.

3. After hearing either side, the trial Court dismissed IA.Nos. 1007 and 1OO8 of 2018 uid.e separate orders dated O4.IO-2O18 and IA.No.1OO6 of 2018 was dismissed in view of orders pronounced in IA.Nos. 1007 and 1008 of 201g. i I 2 CRP.Nos.6E65, 6856 &,6699 of 2023 SKS, J Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff frled CRP.No.6865 of 2018 chailenging the order passed in IA.No. IOOZ of 2Ol8 ; CRP.No.6699 of 2O 18 cha-llenging the order passed in IA.No.lOO8 of 2Ol8; and CRP.No.6856 of 2018 challenging the order passed in IA.No. 1O06 of 2018.

4. Heard Sri B.Shanker, learned counsel for revision petitioner/ plaintiff, and Sri Ali Faraaz Farooai, learned counsel for respondents/ defendants.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the impugned orders passed by the trial Court, are erroneous and unsustainable in law, as the same are contrary to the evidence on record, the probabilities of the cases, and the applicable legal principles. He contended that the tria,l Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction in a proper and judicious manner, as it did not pass orders on the merits of the case, but instead, mechanically acted without applying its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. He. further contended that the trial Court misinterpreted the averments made in the affidavit and hastily passed orders based solely on the counter affidavit averments ltled by the respondents, i) 3 SKS, J CRP.Nos.6865, 6656 & 6699 of 2023 without considering the contradictions and discrepancies in t'l.e version of respondents. He lamented that the tria,l Court overlooked the specifrc averments made in paragraph Nos.3, 4, and, 5 of the petition filed before the trial Court, which clearly establishes the fraudulent activities and false claims of respondents. He incessantly contended that the trial Court failed to consider the nature of the suit, i.e., suit for declaration, possession, and mesne profits, and that the contention of ownership of respondents is .based on false and fabricated documents. He averred that the trial Court also ignored the fact that the counter claim of respondents was solely based on false assertion of ownership, which is contradicted by the records obtained by the petitioner.

6. In addition, while advocating that the trial rlourt failed to consider that allowing the petitions under challenge would not cause any prejudice to the respondents, but would instead ensure that justice is delivered an<i the rights of petitioners are protected, prayed this Court to allow these revision petitions, setting aside the impugned orders dated

04.10.2018 and placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MM.euasim i 4 CRP.Nos.6865, 6856 & 6699 of2O23 SKS; J Vs. Manohar Lal Sharma and Othersl, wherein, 1n paragraph No. 15 it was held as under "15. The next step to be taken is whether where a person claiming to be such a landlord has sought to evict the tenant for his own occupation of the building but lost his interest in entirety in the building during the pendency of the appeal which is a continuation of the suit. Would he still be entitled to maintain or continue the action after the cessation or extinguishment of his interest in the building? To examine this contention on merits one feature of the proceedings under the Rent Act may be taken into consideration. To what extent and in what circumstances the court can take notice of events subsequent to the institution of the action is the core problem. This is no more res integra and need not be examined in depth. In Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu case [(i975) 1 SCC 770: AIR 1975 SC i409 : : (1975) 3 SCR 9581 this Court examined this question in relation to a proceeding under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (l€ase, Rent and Eviction) Control Act,,

1960. The landlord in that case sought to evict the tenant as he wanted to start his own business in the demised premises. In other words, action was for ' t981 3 scc a6 I 5 SKS, J CRP.Nos.6865, 6856 & 6699 of2023 eviction for personal requirement. ln ttre zigzag course of proceedings it transpired that subsequent to the commencement of the action the landlord had come into possession of another shop which would meet with his requirement and on this subsequent event the tenant requested the court to non-suit the plaintiff. At that stage the proceedings were pending before the High Court in a revision petition at the instance of the landlord questioning a remand to the trial court by the first appellate court for investigation of certain facts. In this revision at the instance of the landlord the High Court took notice of the subsequent event that the laldlord's requirement had been fully satisfied as he had come in possession of alother shop. In appeal by the landlord to this Court, a serious exception was taken that the tligh Court could not have taken into consideration an event subsequent to tlle commencement of the proceedings and non-suit the landlord arrd that too at a stage when the proceedings were pending in revision at the instance of the landlord. Negativing this contention and dismissing the appeal this Court, after referring to the decision in ta.chmeshwar Prasad Shukul v. Keshwai Lal Chaudhri [AIR 1940 FC 26 : l94O FCR 841 , quoted with approval the 6 SKS, J CRP.Nos.6865, 6856 & 6699 of 2023 f.., following passage from Patterson v. State of Alabama [294 US 600, 607] :(SCC p. 773, para 5l "We have fuequently held that in the exercise of our appellate jurisdiction we have power not only to correct error in the judgment under review but to make such disposition of the case as justice requires. And in determining what justice does require, the court is bound to consider any change, either in fact or in law, which has supervened since the judgment was entered." In the leading judgment in l,achmeshwar Prasad Shukul case 1294 US 600, 6071 Varadachariar, J., observed that an appeal being in the nature of a rehearing the courts in India have in numerous cases recognised that in moulding the relief to be granted in a case on appeal, the Court of appeal is entitled to take into account even facts which have come into existence after the decree appealed against was made. Krishna lyer, J., summed up the position in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu case [AIR l94O FC 26 : 1940 FCR 841 thus: (SCC pp. 772,773, para 4l "lt is basic to our processual jurisprudence that the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding. Equally clear is the principle that procedure is the handmaid and not I 7 SKS, J CRP.Nos.6865, 6€;56 & 6699 of ,2023 the mistress of the judicial process. If a fact, ansing after the list has come to court and has a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of moulding it, is brought diLigently to the notice of the tribuna.l, it cannot blink at it or be blind to events which stultify or render inept the decretal remecty. EquiQr justi{ies binding the rules of procedure, where no specihc provision or fair play is violated, with a view to promote substantial justice - subject, of course, to the absence of other disentitling factors or just circumstances. Nor can we conternplate any limitation on this power to take note of updated facts to confine it to the trial court. If the litigation pends, the power exists, absent olher special circumstances repelling resort to that colrrse in law or justice .... We affirm the proposition that for making the right or remedy claimed by the party just arrd meaningful as also legally and factually in accord with the current realities, the court can, zrnd in many cases must, take cautious cognisance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed..." t' i l-r 8 CRP.Nos.6865, 6856 & 6699 of 2O23 {- SKS, J To sum up, there was a proper and regular application to meet with the requirements of Order 4l Rule 27, CPC for additional evidence inviting the court's attention to a subsequent event of vital importance cutting at the root of the plaintiffs right to continue the action. Coupled with it, there was evidence in the form of a certified copy of the decree showing that the plaintiffs, even if they had some shade of title to commence action, they having lost all interest in the property and the property having become one of exclusive ownership of a person not a party to the proceedings, were no more entitled to continue the proceedings for their own benelit."

7. On ttre other hand, the learned counsel for respondents, vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and submitted that the petitions filed by the petitioner before the trial Court were at the fag end of the suit and was an attempt to drag and protract the matter, and that the documents sought to be introduced were not relevant to the suit schedule property. He averred that the petitioner failed to show any reason for not pleading about the said documents in the plaint, and also failed to explain why these documents were not filed at 9 SKS, J CRP.Nos.6865, 6856 & {t699 of 2023 the time of filing the plaint, during the trial, or at least during the petitioner evidence. He lamented that the petitioner has not demonstrated how the said documents are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the lis, and that the pefltioner cannot take advantage of the weakness of the case of respondents. In support of his subrnissions, he relied on the judgments rendered in Union of India vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society2, M/s.Bagai Construction vs. M/s.Gupta Building Material Storos, Choudari Rajesham Vs. Choudari Lingaiaha, and Bolla Ajay Babu Vs. Nalla Manik5rammas. Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the revision petitions stating that there are no infirmities or illegalities in the impugned orde:rs.

8. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the revision petitioner had filed petition before the trial Court for receiving documents and to reca,Il the evidence of PW. 1, stating that the documents were obtained under Right to Information Act, and that the sarne were necessary to ' lzot+1 z scc ze9 '(zotg) ra scc r " zors 1s; ar zzs t zoto 1r1 aLo ro: l l 10 CRP.Nos.6865. 6856 & 6699 ot 2023 SKS. J h prove that the propert5r purchased by the respondents through their vendor, was not the original owner of the property and to prove that the said properties were owned ' by different persons. The trial Court dismissed the petitions frled by revision petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not mention as to in what way ttre lands in survey Nos.69 arrd 70 are relevant to the suit and that the documents sought to be received do not pertain to the suit schedule property. .' g. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that mere receiving documents would in no way cause prejudice to the respondents as it is always open for them to cross examine the petitioner on the basis of the said document. Further, it is not the stage to say that petitioner has to rely on his own documents to prove his ownership and possession, and the same can be argued at proper point of time before the trial Court. The limited grievance of the petitioner is to receive documents. Whether it is relevant or admissibld can be decided while marking the document. Moreover, the respondents are aiways at liberty to raise objection over its admissibility and the trial Court can. redress the same at the < 7L SKS, J CRP.Nos.6865, 6856 'Y' 6699 of 2023 time of marking of document. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the trial Court ought to have received the documents. As such, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

10. In view thereof, these revision petitions are allowed' setting aside the orders dated 04'10'2O18 passed in IA.Nos. 1O07. 1008 and 1006 of 2018 in OS'No'928 of 2008 and directing the trial Court to receive the documents' as sought for by the revision petitioner' However, both the parties are directed to co-operate with tl.e trial Court as the matter pertains to the year 2018. There shall be no order as to costs Miscell,aneous applications, if any pending' shall also stand closecl //TRUE COPY// \ To, Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR '\ I TION OFFICER

1. The Xlll Additional District and Sessions Judge, at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Redd District One CC to Sri B Shanker, Advocate IOPUCI One CC to Sri Ali Faraz Farooqui, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 2 3 4 v ADK/gh w - HIGH COURT DATED:0610212025 { H E S{,{ -)" COMMON ORDER l,t' tr1: \1, CRP.Nos.6865, 6856 AND 6699 of 2018 0 6 ilAfi 20[ . r;\f ( D 3 5 a 1, (- OaHCIV<r f' g0z ,yuil s o z ) t) Yo -t s H? $' ALLOWING ALL THE CRPs WITHOUT COSTS @ e5 6