Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1598 (TS)

Sadara Hotels P Ltd. v. K. Sudhakar Naidu

2025-11-21

P.SAM KOSHY

body2025
ORDER : 1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 115 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 assailing the Docket Order dated 27.03.2025 in E.A.No.71 of 2023 in E.P.No.419 of 2022 (for short ‘the impugned order’ ). 2. Heard Mr. S. Sharat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.M. Naga Deepak, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Vide the impugned order, the Exeucting court refused to mark the three documents through PW.1, viz., S. No. Exhibit No. Description 1. Ex.A.21 C.C. of Scheme of Amalgamation in the Company Petition Nos.109 and 110 of 1973 along with list of properties of the PABC which shows that the PABC does not have any property at Pedda Gudur Village, dated 05.07.1973. 2. Ex.A.22 Findings of the sole Arbitrator Justice K. Punnaiah, Retired Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court, dated 21.06.1989, with regard to Rev. Moses who executed an agreement of Sale in favour of Decree Holder dated 21.06.1989. 3. Ex.A.23 Minutes of the meeting and authorization to Mr. G.D.D. Diwakar dated 30.07.1996 to evict illegal encroacher David Raju dated 30.07.1996. 4. The matter revolves around a judgment passed through the Lok Adalat by way of a compromise petition vide Award dated 15.12.2005 in O.S.No.41 of 2005 passed by the Lok Adalat, at Machilipatnam under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. In the said Award, respondent No.1 herein was plaintiff in the above suit, whereas respondent No.2 herein was not a party in the above suit. 5. Initially, the suit O.S.No.41 of 2005 was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant seeking for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale dated 27.11.1996 by directing the defendant to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property and for other reliefs. The suit was pertaining to ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule of properties. In the course of settlement, the plaintiffs have not pressed their claim against ‘B’ schedule property. The suit was pertaining to ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule of properties. In the course of settlement, the plaintiffs have not pressed their claim against ‘B’ schedule property. The said ‘B’schedule property is reproduced as under, viz., “B” Schedule property filed on behalf of the plaintiffs All that piece and parcel of the land admeasuring Acs.3.00 out of total extent of 10.00 cents at Peda Guduru within the Sub-Registry of Machilipatnam, in R.S.no.512, is bounded by : East :: R. Anasuyamma South :: R. Saradhi North :: Pedintlamma West :: N. Rajendra Prasad 6. The petitioner herein, in the execution petition that was filed before the Executing Court, i.e., E.P.No.419 of 2022, respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 / Decree Holder / Judgment Debtor raised a rival claim and sought for stay of further proceedings in E.P.No.419 of 2022. In the process of deciding the said E.A.No.71 of 2022 by the Executing Court, the petitioner (as PW.1) has filed his examination-in-chief on 12.03.2024 and also filed an Additional Chief Examination on 24.02.2025. In the said chief examination, the petitioner (as PW.1) intended to get the above referred three documents marked as Exs.A21 to A23. However, vide the impugned order, the Executing Court refused to mark the above three documents. 7. Assailing the same, the instant Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the subject three documents which the petitioner intend to get them marked are public documents and which are available in the public domain and, as such the marking of the same would not cause any prejudice to the interest of parties; rather the documents would bring more clarity in respect of claim of the petitioner as also the entitlement of the respondents / defendants. He further contended that the Executing Court failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 74 and 77 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 on the basis of which the three documents in question could be marked. He further contended that the Executing Court failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 74 and 77 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 on the basis of which the three documents in question could be marked. He further contended that mere marking of the three documents by itself would not prove the case in favour of petitioner, but in the course of deciding the E.P. the Executing Court would definitely consider the evidentiary value of those documents; and if the documents do not have any evidentiary value the Executing Court would not have granted any relief to the petitioner that would flow from these three documents; and therefore, prayed that the Civil Revision Petition may be allowed. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that, when petitioner was neither an author nor a scribe of those documents, and the said documents pertain to third-parties, a question therefore arises as to how the petitioner could obtain the above three documents; and therefore, contended that the Executing Court had rightly rejected marking of those three documents. He further contended that if at all these documents were to be marked, the concerned person ought to have been confronted with for the purpose of marking these documents which otherwise cannot be permitted through the petitioner who is totally un- associated with the said documents. He therefore prayed that there are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition, and the same may be dismissed. 10. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on a perusal of the records, this Court opines that the objections so raised by the respondents before the Executing Court objecting to the petitioner in getting these documents marked were perfectly justified as, (i) admittedly the petitioner was neither an author nor a scribe of the said documents, (ii) the documents pertain to third-parties, and (iii) the petitioner has not disclosed as to how, when and from where he had obtained the said documents. The further finding which is culled out is that the petitioner is not a party to the document dated 05.07.1973 (Ex.A21); the petitioner is also not a party to the arbitration proceeding in which the sole arbitrator was Justice K. Ponnaiah, Retired Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court; nor was the petitioner a party to the minutes of the meeting dated 30.07.1976 which dealt with the issue raised in the said meeting. Another aspect which is apparently evident from the impugned order is that the Executing Court has not fore-closed the right of the petitioner in getting these documents marked but had only ordered that these documents could be marked only by the concerned person related to the said documents; and therefore, the Executing Court left it open to the petitioner by holding that the petitioner may get the documents marked through concerned person. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order passed by the Executing Court cannot be found fault with more particularly to test the veracity of the order passed by the Court exercising revisional powers at this stage. 11. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.