Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 763 (TS)

Vijayalaxmi Sharma v. Rajender Singh Liddar

2025-06-09

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

body2025
ORDER : LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated 21.02.2023 in I.A.No.614 of 2019 in O.S.No.987 of 2015 passed by the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil court at Hyderabad, where-under and whereby the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XVI Rule 1 (2) &(6) read with Section 151 of CPC was dismissed. 2. Heard Ms. D.Padmavati, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Shyam S.Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for respondents. 3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants before the trial Court. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 4. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present Civil Revision Petition are that plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.987 of 2015 against the defendants to declare the sale deed No.1266 of 2015 dated 13.03.2015 as null and void and also for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendants entered appearance and filed written statement and the evidence on behalf of both parties was concluded and the matter was coming up for arguments. 5. At that stage, present application was filed by the plaintiff for direction to summon the Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Afzal Guinj Branch, Hyderabad to produce original will deed dated 05.01.2002, sale deed dated 09.03.2007 vide document No.619 of 2007 and sale deed dated 13.03.2015 vide document no.1266 of 2015. The respondents filed counter and resisted the application. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 21.02.2023, dismissed the application with an observation that the suit was coming up for arguments and plaintiff filed the application after more than 2½ years of closure of defendants’ evidence and the similar application filed earlier was dismissed and the said order was not challenged and that no sufficient cause has been shown. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff would submit that production of documents sought for by the plaintiff is crucial for proper adjudication of the suit. She would further submit that during the course of cross-examination, DW.1 stated that he has given the documents to his counsel for filing the same in the Court and if they are not filed, he would file the same in the Court. She would further submit that during the course of cross-examination, DW.1 stated that he has given the documents to his counsel for filing the same in the Court and if they are not filed, he would file the same in the Court. However, in later part of the cross-examination, DW.1 has taken a different stand that the said documents are lying with Syndicate Bank as they have availed loan. Thus, there is a contradictory stand on the part of the defendants with an intention not to produce the documents before the Court. She further submitted that said documents are crucial and same would assist the trial Court to decide the controversy on merits, however, trial Court on improper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, erroneously dismissed the application and finally, prayed to allow the revision petition. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/defendants would submit that the revision filed by the petitioner is devoid of any merit and no grounds are made out to interfere with the well reasoned order of the trial Court. He would further submit that plaintiff filed an application vide I.A.No.228 of 2016 for production of same documents and the said application was dismissed on 22.02.2017 by the trial Court on merits and thus, it has become final as the plaintiff did not challenge the said order. He further submitted that after 2½ years from the date of dismissal of the earlier application, present application is filed when the matter is coming up for arguments only to protract the matter. He would further submit that plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction and therefore, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the contentions by leading evidence and production of documents is not necessary for adjudication of the matter and therefore, application is liable to be dismissed. 8. He would further submit that plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction and therefore, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the contentions by leading evidence and production of documents is not necessary for adjudication of the matter and therefore, application is liable to be dismissed. 8. Perusal of the record would disclose that plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction and she earlier filed I.A.No.228 of 2016 for the same relief and the same was dismissed by the trial Court on 22.02.2017 with an observation that plaintiff has not stated any reason as to how the documents sought for are expedient at this stage except saying that defendants failed to produce the documents despite receiving notice for producing the same and further observed that plaintiff has to prove her case prima facie, then the onus shifts on to the defendants and thus, the application is premature. The said order was not challenged by the plaintiff and thus, it has become final and the entire evidence was closed on both sides and the matter was coming up for arguments and that plaintiff came up with the application after more than 2½ years of closure of defendants side evidence. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, no reasons are assigned for the delay that too when the matter was coming up for arguments, except saying that the documents would assist the trial Court to decide the controversy on merits and that no serious prejudice would be caused to the defendants. 9. It is relevant to note that the plaintiff has failed to explain as to how the documents sought for are relevant and necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. Perusal of the plaint would disclose that certified copy of one of the sale deeds i.e., document No.1266 of 2015 dated 13.03.2015 was filed by the plaintiff along with the plaint and nothing is prevented her from obtaining certified copy of the sale deed No.619 of 2007 dated 09.03.2007 and file the same before the trial Court. 10. As rightly observed by the trial Court, plaintiff failed to show sufficient cause for not filing the application at the stage of trial and that plaintiff slept over and came up with the application after more than 2½ years after closure of defendants side evidence and that too when the matter was coming up for arguments. 10. As rightly observed by the trial Court, plaintiff failed to show sufficient cause for not filing the application at the stage of trial and that plaintiff slept over and came up with the application after more than 2½ years after closure of defendants side evidence and that too when the matter was coming up for arguments. 11. In view of above discussion and peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in considered opinion of this Court, petitioner/plaintiff failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court and no grounds are made out to interfere with the trial Court and thus, Revision fails and accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.