Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 201 (TS)

V. Limba Reddy v. V. Raja Gangamani

2024-03-15

N.TUKARAMJI

body2024
ORDER : N. Tukaramji, J. 1. As these three revision petitions are intertwined, they are heard together and are disposed of by way of this common order. 2. Heard Mr.N. Srushman Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Srinivas Velagapudi, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that, the revision petitioner as plaintiff filed O.s. No. 66 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad for declaration of title of the suit schedule property and perpetual injunction against the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Pending proceedings the revision petitioner has filed the Interlocutory Application Nos. 571, 572 and 573 of 2022 whereby prayed for reopening the plaintiff's evidence, to receive the documents and to recall the P.W.1 to mark the received document on behalf of the plaintiff. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 28.12.2023 dismissed all the petitions. Aggrieved thereby the present revision has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit the documents which are intended to bring on record are found while shifting the house. Further as he was unaware of these documents by the date of filing of the suit, reference of these documents were not made in the pleadings. Therefore, there is no willful negligence in bringing the documents on to the record. Further though the suit is in advance stage receiving of documents will not cause any prejudice to the other side as the respondents will have an opportunity to examine the witness. However, the trial Court without considering these aspects has dismissed the petitions causing grave injustice to the petitioner. Hence, prayed for allowing the petitions. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the petitioners were filed after the trial and part hearing of the arguments. In addition, the revision petitioner nowhere had mentioned about these documents in the suit proceedings all through. Further pleaded that as per the contemplation under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC the plaintiff shall place the documents relied upon him along with the suit by entering in the list of documents. Admittedly these documents were neither mentioned nor referred to in the suit pleadings. Thus, permitting the revision petitioner to produce those documents without substantive pleading in the plaint would be a futile exercise as it is against the settled propositions. Learned counsel cited Kyatham Rajkumar Vs. Admittedly these documents were neither mentioned nor referred to in the suit pleadings. Thus, permitting the revision petitioner to produce those documents without substantive pleading in the plaint would be a futile exercise as it is against the settled propositions. Learned counsel cited Kyatham Rajkumar Vs. Vaddepalli Rajamani 2023 (5) ALT 515 (S.B.) and pleaded that, this Court has held that, the documents without pleadings and foundation cannot be received on to the record. 6. I have perused the documents, materials placed on record and considered the submissions. 7. Indisputably, the reference of the documents intended to file by the revision petitioner are no where reflected in the pleadings nor referred to at any stage of the suit proceedings. On the top of it the attempt to bring these documents on to record at the stage of arguments of the suit. 8. Be that as it may, it is well settled that no document can be brought on record without any substantive pleading. Thus letting the revision petitioner to present the documents in the suit would amount to permitting him to place the material without pleading. Furthermore, the suit is filed for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. It is the stand of revision petitioner that the relevant documents to prove the suit claim were already filed along with the suit. Therefore the documents which are intended to be brought on record would be inessential in determining the issue in the suit. 9. That being the position, no impropriety or illegality is found in the impugned order. Consequently, in the absence of merit, the revision petitions are liable to be and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.