Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 844 (TS)

Sudhi Reddy Vasantha Rao v. Sudhireddy Rama Rao

2025-06-09

G.RADHA RANI

body2025
ORDER : G. RADHA RANI, J. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner - defendant aggrieved by the docket order dated 17.08.2021 passed in I.A.No.1217 of 2021 in O.S.No.164 of 2006 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad in allowing the petition filed by the plaintiff for receiving certain documents. 2. The respondent filed the suit O.S.No.164 of 2006 seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the petitioner - defendant herein before the Junior Civil Judge at Huzurabad. The said suit was dismissed by the trial court on 16.02.2013. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the respondent - plaintiff preferred A.S.No.8 of 2013. The said appeal was heard by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Huzurabad and vide judgment dated 01.02.2019 allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the trial court and remanded the matter back for fresh trial within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of records. After the matter was remanded, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1217 of 2021 under Section 151 of CPC to receive certain documents i.e. certified copies of pahanies for the years 2005-2011, No Due Certificate given by the Co-perative Society, Elkathurthy dated 11.08.2006, certified copy of FIR, certified copy of complaint, certified copy of charge sheet, certified copy of the statements of LWs.1 to 4, the true copy of the statement of the plaintiff, the certified copy of the letter issued by the Co-operative Executive Officer, Elkathurthy, certified copy of memo issued by the Naib Tahsildar, Elkathurthy. 3. The plaintiff filed an affidavit along with the said petition stating that he filed the above documents before the Lower Appellate Court i.e. the Senior Civil Judge Court at Huzurabad itself. All the said documents were public documents, which were relevant to prove his claim. The suit was posted for the evidence of the official witnesses i.e. the Tahsildar, Elkathurthy and the Co- operative Executive Officer, Elkathurthy, as per the direction of the Lower Appellate Court, as such prayed to receive and mark the same as exhibits in the case. 4. The defendant filed counter in the said I.A. contending that the said documents were not filed during the course of trial. They were brought into existence for the first time in the appeal by way of filing I.A.No.445 of 2013 under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. 4. The defendant filed counter in the said I.A. contending that the said documents were not filed during the course of trial. They were brought into existence for the first time in the appeal by way of filing I.A.No.445 of 2013 under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. After due enquiry, the Lower Appellate Court dismissed the petition, on which the petitioner preferred C.R.P.No.3208 of 2015. The High Court directed the Lower Appellate Court to hear and decide I.A.No.445 of 2013 along with the main appeal and to pass orders in accordance with law. The Lower Appellate Court remanded the suit to the Court for fresh trial with a direction to examine the Tahsildar, Elkathurthy in respect of the issue of pahani for the year 2004-05 and also the authorities of LSCS, Elkathurthy to ascertain whether the respondent - defendant deposited the remaining sale consideration in the name of his son with the society. As per the directions of the Appellate Court, the Court issued summons to the Tahsildar, Elkathurthy and Manager, LSCS, Elkathurthy. The suit was remanded to the Court with a limited power to examine the above witnesses. The petitioner had no right to mark the documents as exhibits, which were not allowed by the Appellate Court and sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. The trial court observing that the matter was remanded to conduct fresh trial to know the true facts of the case and as no prejudice would be caused to the respondent, allowed the same subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility of the documents. 6. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad dated 17.08.2021 in I.A.No.1217 of 2021 in O.S.No.164 of 2006, the defendant preferred this revision. 7. Heard Sri K.Buchi Babu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner - defendant and Smt.S.A.V.Rathnam, learned counsel for the respondent - plaintiff. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said documents were not filed during the course of trial. The respondent in collusion with the revenue authorities and LSCS, Elkathurthy, created and brought into existence the said documents for the first time in the appeal and filed I.A.No.445 of 2013. The Lower Appellate Court after due enquiry dismissed the petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said documents were not filed during the course of trial. The respondent in collusion with the revenue authorities and LSCS, Elkathurthy, created and brought into existence the said documents for the first time in the appeal and filed I.A.No.445 of 2013. The Lower Appellate Court after due enquiry dismissed the petition. The High Court in C.R.P.No.3208 of 2015 directed the Lower Appellate Court to hear and decide the I.A. along with the main appeal and to pass orders in accordance with law. But the said I.A. was not disposed of by the Lower Appellate Court. All the documents were created and brought into existence as an after thought without being in physical possession of the property and prayed to set aside the docket order dated 17.08.2021 passed in I.A.No.1217 of 2021 in O.S.No.164 of 2006. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the matter was remanded by the Lower Appellate Court to conduct fresh trial, as such, the respondent has every opportunity to adduce evidence. No order was passed in Order XLI Rule 27 petition in A.S.No.8 of 2013 by the Lower Appellate Court. The petitioner was not opposing examining the MRO as well as the Secretary, LSCS, but without marking the documents, the witnesses could not depose about them. There was no illegality in the order passed by the trial court in receiving the documents and prayed to dismiss the revision. 10. Perused the record. 11. The record would disclose that the suit was filed by the respondent - plaintiff seeking perpetual injunction against the defendant contending that he was the owner of Ac.1-10 guntas in Survey No.436. The defendant was his neighboring land owner and intended to purchase the said property and entered into an agreement of sale for Rs.88,000/-, but only paid part of the sale consideration of Rs.53,000/-. He failed to pay the balance sale consideration, but with an intention to cause wrongful loss to him, was interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 12. He failed to pay the balance sale consideration, but with an intention to cause wrongful loss to him, was interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 12. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff was the owner of the property and that he approached the plaintiff for purchase of the suit land and the price for Ac.1-10 guntas was fixed at Rs.88,000/- and he paid Rs.53,000/-, but contended that it was the plaintiff, who was avoiding to receive the balance sale consideration. He agreed to pay the debts on the suit land and paid Rs.4,050/- towards land revenue arrears and deposited Rs.24,000/- in the account of the plaintiff in PACCS Bank for repayment of mortgage loan amount. He was ready to pay the balance amount and to register the sale deed. He also approached the elders, but the plaintiff evaded. As such, he got issued a legal notice showing his readiness, having coming to know that the plaintiff addressed a letter to the Village Secretary to record his possession and denied the execution of registered sale deed. The defendant contended that he was in possession and enjoyment of the property under the sale agreement dated 26.05.2003 and his name was also recorded in the pahani for the year 2003-04. 13. The trial court on considering that the defendant was in possession of the property by the date of filing the suit, decreed the suit in his favor. The Lower Appellate Court observed that the defendant was claiming to be the owner of the property without paying the entire sale consideration to the plaintiff. Mere entries in the pahanies would not confer any title. Without acquiring any right over the entire suit schedule property, the defendant could not be deemed to be the owner and possessor of the suit property. Mere entries in the pahanies would not confer any title. Without acquiring any right over the entire suit schedule property, the defendant could not be deemed to be the owner and possessor of the suit property. Though the MRO stated that he made spot enquiry before recording the possession in favor of the defendant, but failed to mention the names of the persons with whom he enquired at the spot and not stated as to whose statements he has recorded and that it was necessary to decide as to how and who entered the name of the defendant in the pahanies without any mutation proceedings and that it was also necessary to decide whether the defendant had deposited the remaining sale consideration in the account of the son of the plaintiff, as such the MRO and the LSCS authorities need to be examined, remanded the matter to the trial court. But while remanding the matter, the Lower Appellate Court i.e. the learned Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad directed the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad to conduct fresh trial. 14. When the matter was remanded to the trial court to conduct fresh trial, it was open to the parties to adduce evidence and to mark the documents relevant to the case in accordance with law. 15. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner - defendant that the matter was remanded to the trial court only on limited grounds, is not correct, as the order of the Lower Appellate Court would not specify that the matter was remanded to the trial court only on the limited grounds. The respondent - plaintiff filed the above referred documents before the Lower Appellate Court itself. When the said I.A. filed by the respondent - plaintiff before the Lower Appellate Court was dismissed and the matter was carried in revision, this Court directed the Lower Appellate Court to decide the said application along with the appeal. But without deciding the said application, the Lower Appellate Court remanded the matter to the trial court to conduct fresh trial. As such, it was open for the parties to agitate the matter before the trial court afresh. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner was that the pahanies were pertaining to the dates subsequent to the filing of the suit, as such the same were not relevant. 16. As such, it was open for the parties to agitate the matter before the trial court afresh. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner was that the pahanies were pertaining to the dates subsequent to the filing of the suit, as such the same were not relevant. 16. It was for the trial court to decide whether the above documents are relevant or not. As the documents were received by the trial court subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility, this Court does not find any illegality in the order of the trial court in receiving the same. As this revision is filed challenging the docket order dated 17.08.2021 of the trial court for receiving the said documents subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility, only on the ground that the Lower Appellate Court had remanded the matter to the trial court only for examining the witnesses, but not for marking the documents, this Court clarifies that as the Lower Appellate Court remanded the matter for fresh trial, the documents also can be received in support of the contentions of both the parties subject to their proof, relevancy and admissibility. 17. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the docket order dated 17.08.2021 passed in I.A.No.1217 of 2021 in I.A.No.164 of 2006 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, in receiving the documents. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed.