Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 736 (TS)

Laghuvarapu Sudharani v. G. Hanumanthu

2020-10-14

A.RAJASEKHAR REDDY

body2020
ORDER : A. Rajasekhar Reddy, J. 1. This civil revision petition is filed against order dated 23.9.2020 in IA No. 356 of 2020 in OS No. 166 of 2018, wherein and whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order XIII Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC for return of Ex. A1, original registered agreement of sale bearing Document No. 9195 of 2017 dated 18.7.2017, is dismissed by the Trial Court, on the ground that the suit itself is decreed basing on Ex. A1, as such, the same is superceded by disposal of the suit and the execution of sale deed is also completed in pursuance to the orders in EP No. 774 of 2018. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that since Ex. A1 itself is filed by the petitioners themselves for specific performance of the same and the suit i.e., OS No. 166 of 2018 itself is decreed on 30.4.2018 and that the registered Sale Deed No. 955 of 2020 was executed on 23.1.2020 in pursuance to orders in EP No. 774 of 2018, as such, the document is liable to be returned to the petitioners. He also submits that the petitioners will substitute the same with the certified copy of the same. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgment reported in the case of K. Veerappa Gounder v. Pushpathal, CRP (PD) No. 3192 of 2008 3. In this case, it is to be seen that the suit i.e., OS No. 166 of 2018 itself is decreed on 30.4.2018 and registered Sale Deed No. 955 of 2020 is also executed on 23.1.2020. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the same is passed without considering Order XIII Rule 9 of CPC. For the purpose of appreciating the contentions of learned Counsel for the petitioners, it has become necessary to extract Order 13 Rule 9(1) of CPC. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the same is passed without considering Order XIII Rule 9 of CPC. For the purpose of appreciating the contentions of learned Counsel for the petitioners, it has become necessary to extract Order 13 Rule 9(1) of CPC. "Return of admitted documents:--(1) Any person, whether a party to the suit or not, desirous of receiving back any document produced by him in the suit and placed on the records shall, unless the document is impounded under Rule 8, be entitled to receive back the same-- (a) Where the suit is one in which an appeal is not allowed, when the suit has been disposed of; and (b) Where the suit is one in which an appeal is allowed, when the Court is satisfied that the time for preferring an appeal has elapsed and that no appeal has been preferred or, if an appeal has been preferred, when the appeal has been disposed of; Provided that a document may be returned at anytime earlier than that prescribed by this rule if the person applying therefor-- (a) delivers to the proper officer for being substituted for the original-- (i) in the case of a party to the suit, a certified copy, and (ii) in the case of any other person, an ordinary copy which has been examined compared and certified in the manner mentioned in sub-rule (2) of Rule 17 of Order VII, and (b) undertakes to produce the original, if required to do so: Provided also that no document shall be returned which, by force of the decree has become wholly void or useless. (2) On the return of a document admitted in evidence, a receipt shall be given by the person receiving it". 4. A careful perusal of the said provision goes to show that any person desirous of receiving back any document produced by him in the suit shall, unless the document is impounded under Rule 8, be entitled to receive back the same. 4. A careful perusal of the said provision goes to show that any person desirous of receiving back any document produced by him in the suit shall, unless the document is impounded under Rule 8, be entitled to receive back the same. Where suit has been disposed of against which no appeal is allowed or where appeal is provided the time for preferring appeal has elapsed or appeal is disposed of provided that a document can be returned at any time earlier than prescribed by above rule if the same is substituted by a certified copy in case of party to the suit in case of any other person, an ordinary copy which has been examined compared and certified in the manner mentioned in sub-rule (2) of Rule 17 of Order VII and undertakes to produce the original, if required to do so. 5. As per impugned order, it does not appear any appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court in OS No. 166 of 2018 on 30.4.2018 as on the date of the application filed by the petitioners for return of the document. In fact, EP No. 774 of 2018 filed by the petitioners has been allowed and Registered Sale Deed bearing No. 955 of 2020 was executed on 23.1.2020 in favour of the petitioners. It is not disputed that the petitioners themselves filed Ex. A1, registered agreement of sale bearing Document No. 9195 of 2017 dated 18.7.2017 before the Court below. Therefore, the order passed by the lower Court is not in conformity with the provision under Order 13 Rule 9(1) of CPC. 6. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed directing the Court below to return the registered agreement of sale bearing Document No. 9195 of 2017 dated 18.7.2017 to the petitioners if no appeal is preferred as on date, on substituting the same with the certified copy of the same. 7. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand disposed of.