ORDER : B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. CRP.NO.3566 OF 2023 1. This CRP is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed in IA.No.358 of 2023 in OS.No.112 of 2018 dated 13.10.2023 which is filed under Order 18 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) to recall PW.1 for marking Development Agreement dated 29.08.2007 which came to be dismissed. CRP.NO.3567 OF 2023 2. This CRP is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed in IA.No.357 of 2023 in OS.No.112 of 2018 dated 13.10.2023 filed under Section 151 of CPC to reopen the case of the plaintiff which came to be dismissed. CRP.NO.3575 OF 2023 3. This CRP is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed in IA.No.356 of 2023 dated 13.10.2023 in OS.No.112 of 2018 which is filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC to receive the Development Agreement dated 29.08.2007 vide document No.11152/2007 which came to be dismissed. 4. The learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at LB Nagar has passed common order in IA.No.356 of 2023 (under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC) to receive the Development Agreement dated 29.08.2007, IA.No.357 of 2013 (under Section 151 of CPC) to reopen the case of the plaintiff and IA.No.358 of 2023 (under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC) to recall PW.1. 5.1. Petitioner is the petitioner-plaintiff and respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the respondents-defendants. 5.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 are not necessary parties to the CRPs and the contesting parties are respondent Nos.3 and 4. 6. CRP.No.3567 of 2023 is the lead matter. Petitioner-plaintiff has filed three separate applications. One to Reopen the case of the plaintiff (IA No.357 of 2023), another application is to recall PW.1 for marking Development Agreement (IA.No.358 of 2023), another application to receive documents i.e., Development Agreement dated 29.08.2007 (IA.No.356 of 2023). The affidavit filed by the petitioner is the same in all the three IA's except the prayer portion. Hence, for the sake of convenience the contents of the affidavit in IA No.357 of 2023 are taken. 7.1. The affidavit filed by the petitioner is the same in all the three IA's except the prayer portion. Hence, for the sake of convenience the contents of the affidavit in IA No.357 of 2023 are taken. 7.1. It is stated in the affidavit (IA.No.357 of 2023) that petitioner is examined as PW.1 in the suit and on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 one Shaik Anwar who is the husband of respondent No.3- defendant No.3 has filed his affidavit in the form of DW.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B6. It is the contention of respondent Nos.3 and 4-defendant Nos.3 and 4 that they have purchased the property from respondent No.1-defendant No.1 through GPA holder and respondent No.4-defendant No.4 in turn has entered into Development Agreement with respondent No.5-defendant No.5 i.e., M/s. Lahari Constructions but they did not file the same before the Court. Further, DW.1 deposed that he does not have any knowledge about the Development Agreement and its date of execution, so also he do not have knowledge about the Flats which were allotted to them, he gave vague answers. The intention of DW.1 is only to defeat the petitioner-plaintiff legal rights, he did not disclose the Development Agreement as well as the Flats which were allotted to them. The petitioner-plaintiff being uneducated and with the help of others she could secured the Development Agreement which was executed in favour of respondent No.5- defendant No.5 on 29.08.2007 vide document No.11152/2007. According to the Development Agreement respondent Nos.3 and 4- defendant Nos.3 and 4 have got eight Flats. 7.2. The certified copy of Development Agreement was received by her on 05.06.2023 from MeeSeva, Kuntlur and the said document is required for adjudicating the case. The delay caused in securing the Development Agreement is neither intentional nor wanton. DW.1 has intentionally suppressed the fact and approached the Court with unclean hands and according to the cross-examination he do not have any knowledge regarding the transactions. As a matter of fact, respondent No.3-defendant No.3 has to give evidence because they are aware of the transactions and she was expecting that the respondents-defendants may file the crucial document. DW.1 has intentionally suppressed the fact and approached the Court with unclean hands and according to the cross-examination he do not have any knowledge regarding the transactions. As a matter of fact, respondent No.3-defendant No.3 has to give evidence because they are aware of the transactions and she was expecting that the respondents-defendants may file the crucial document. Further the petitioner-plaintiff came to know that respondent Nos.2 and 3-defenant Nos.2 and 3 are collecting a sum of Rs.2 Crores from the Builders towards goodwill and the said amount will not be refunded to the Builder, in that connection she intended to file the Development Agreement dated 29.08.2007. To avoid complications petitioner-plaintiff has to amend the plaint as well as add ‘B’ schedule property by showing the allotment of Flats to the respondents-defendants and prayed to reopen the case of the petitioner-plaintiff, recall PW.1 for marking Development Agreement (IA.No.358 of 2023) and to receive the document (IA.No.356 of 2023). 8.1. Respondent Nos.3 and 4-defendant Nos.3 and 4 have filed their counter in all the applications. Hence, the counter filed in IA.No.357 of 2023 reads as under: 8.2. Respondent Nos.3 and 4-defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the bona fide purchases of the suit schedule property. Petitioner- plaintiff, respondent No.1-defendant No.1 have jointly filed suit in OS No.1159 of 2007 seeking relief of declaration along with other reliefs which is the subject matter of AS.No.533 of 2018 pending before the High Court. It is to suffice that under the Evidence Act, husband is a competent witness to speak on behalf of his wife and the allegations made by the petitioner-plaintiff in the affidavit are false, created only to cover up her latches. No case is made out by the petitioner-plaintiff to reopen the plaintiff evidence, recall PW.1 and to receive documents and prayed to dismiss the same. 9. The learned trial Court has dismissed three applications filed by the petitioner-plaintiff vide common order dated 13.10.2023 which are impugned in the CRP’s. 10. No case is made out by the petitioner-plaintiff to reopen the plaintiff evidence, recall PW.1 and to receive documents and prayed to dismiss the same. 9. The learned trial Court has dismissed three applications filed by the petitioner-plaintiff vide common order dated 13.10.2023 which are impugned in the CRP’s. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff in all the CRPs contended that the learned trial Court failed to discuss the crucial document which was filed by the revision petitioner, further the said document is useful for adjudication of the case, the learned trial Court ought to have seen that if the suit is decreed in respect of the plaint schedule property where already apartment was constructed, it is very difficult to execute the decree. The learned trial Court ought to have seen that DW.1 is an Advocate who gave vague answers in his cross-examination, the Development Agreement was not marked in the suit and the learned trial Court failed to observe that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed Development Agreement which belongs to respondent No.3 to 5-defendant Nos.3 to 5 which has to be marked through the petitioner-plaintiff and the learned trial Court failed to see that the revision petitioner did not recall DW.1 to mark the document and the learned trial Court failed to see that the allotment of Flats will be reflected in the Development Agreement, on the basis of Development Agreement the schedule property is to be amended as ‘B’ schedule. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Sudhir Kumar @ S.Baliyan Vs. Vinay Kumar G.B. (2021) 13 SCC 71 (2) Sugandhi (Dead) by LRs. and Another Vs. P.Rajkumar represented by his Power Agent Imam Oli , (2020) 10 SCC 706 (3) Lukka Srinivasa Rao @ Venkateswarlu Vs. Lukka Sivaiah , 2016 (1) ALT 36 (S.B.) (4) Lakshmi Priya Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Ramalingam Mills Ltd. and another 2016 (2) ALT 537 (S.B.) (5) Indrajeet Singh Sethi Vs. Harleen Singh Sethi 2024 SCC OnLine MP 1280 (6) Usha Kiran Saxena Vs. Amit Maheshwari and Ors. MANU/MP/0033/2025 and prayed to allow the petitions. 11. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner- plaintiff. Harleen Singh Sethi 2024 SCC OnLine MP 1280 (6) Usha Kiran Saxena Vs. Amit Maheshwari and Ors. MANU/MP/0033/2025 and prayed to allow the petitions. 11. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner- plaintiff. Counsel further submits that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed IA.No.600 of 2023 under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to amend the plaint i.e., amendment is sought pertaining to Development Agreement bearing No.11152/2007 dated 29.08.2007 said to have been executed in favour of respondent No.5-defendant No.5 which came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court on 31.12.2004 and the petitioner-plaintiff has carried the matter in CRP No.961 of 2025 which came to be dismissed on 04.04.2025. Since the amendment sought by the petitioner-plaintiff to the plaint in respect of Development Agreement is dismissed, cause in the CRPs does not survive and all the CRP’s are liable to be dismissed. 12. Petitioner’s counsel has filed common synopsis in all the CRP’s. 13. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material. 14. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the common orders passed by the learned trial Court suffers from any perversity or illegality? If so, does it require interference of this Court? 15. It is stated in the synopsis by the petitioner-plaintiff that GPA was created in the name of respondent No.1-defendant No.1 by respondent No.2-defendant No.2 and sold the suit property to respondent Nos.3 and 4-defendant Nos.3 and 4 within a span of one month. Petitioner-plaintiff and respondent No.1-defendant No.1 came to know about the forged and created document thereby they both filed suit for declaration and for cancellation of GPA dated 22.06.1992 vide document No.1459/1992 and sale deed document No.10936/1992 vide OS.No.1157 of 2007 which came to be decreed by the II Additional District Judge at Ranga Reddy, L.B.Nagar declaring the documents as null and void. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 who are the parties in OS.No.1157 of 2007 preferred Appeal before the High Court vide AS.No.533 of 2018 and obtained stay of execution of judgment and decree in OS.No.1157 of 2007. 16. Petitioner-plaintiff has filed all the three applications i.e., to reopen the evidence of petitioner-plaintiff, recall of PW.1 and receive documents on 12.06.2023 before the learned trial Court after the conclusion of the arguments of the contesting respondents-defendants. 17.1. 16. Petitioner-plaintiff has filed all the three applications i.e., to reopen the evidence of petitioner-plaintiff, recall of PW.1 and receive documents on 12.06.2023 before the learned trial Court after the conclusion of the arguments of the contesting respondents-defendants. 17.1. Petitioner-plaintiff has filed OS No.112 of 2018 against the respondents-defendants seeking partition of the suit schedule property that she is entitled to 2/3rd share and respondent No.1- defendant No.1 is entitled to 1/3rd share and put her in possession of the same and to award mesne profits for illegal possession of respondent Nos.2 to 5-defendant Nos.2 to 5 at Rs.2 Lakhs from the date of suit till delivery of possession and to restrain them from alienating the property by virtue of alleged GPA document No.1459/1992, dated 22.06.1992 and sale deed dated 21.10.1992 vide document No.10396 of 1992. 17.2. The schedule of the property is land admeasuring Acs.0-10 guntas forming part of survey No.35EE, situated at Manikonda (Village & Jagir), Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District with specific boundaries. 18. Respondent No.1-defendant No.1 has filed her written statement and prayed to pass decree as prayed for and allot 1/3 rd share to her. 19. Respondent Nos.3 and 4-defendant Nos.3 and 4 have filed their written statement and contended that they are the absolute owners and in possession of the suit schedule property having purchased the same for valuable sale consideration vide registered sale deed bearing document No.10396/1992 dated 21.10.1992 from Raji Reddy and respondent No.1-defendant No.1 represented by her GPA holder respondent No.2-defendant No.2. 20.1. It is stated in the plaint at para No.6 that respondent Nos.3 and 4-defendant Nos.3 and 4 have purchased the property in the year 1992 as such they are in possession of the suit property, as a matter of fact the GPA and sale deed are sham and bogus documents. Further their names are not reflected till 2007 in any record even though they have entered into Development Agreement with respondent No.5-defendnat No.5. The plaint further goes to show that in the year 2008 respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5-defendant Nos.2, 3 and 5 have started the construction by grabbing the suit survey number and constructed apartment illegally. Further their names are not reflected till 2007 in any record even though they have entered into Development Agreement with respondent No.5-defendnat No.5. The plaint further goes to show that in the year 2008 respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5-defendant Nos.2, 3 and 5 have started the construction by grabbing the suit survey number and constructed apartment illegally. Further according to the knowledge of the petitioner-plaintiff, in survey number 35EE, where they have constructed about 15 Flats and the same was let out to various tenants on monthly rent of Rs.2 Lakhs per month as the schedule property is situated in prime area and the apartment is known as “Harivillu”. 20.2. In the cause of action para of the plaint it is mentioned that respondent Nos.3 to 5-defendant Nos.3 to 5 have approached the suit land in the month of August, 2007 for the first time when they tried to dispossess the petitioner-plaintiff and respondent No.1- defendant No.1 under the guise of illegal document. 21.1. In Sudhir Kumar @ S.Baliyan (supra), the Supreme Court held that “even if there is delay in producing the document the same ought not to be ground to reject or dismiss the application, if the document is found to be genuine and necessary for deciding the real controversy procedure is handmaid of justice not its mistress”. 21.2. In Sugandhi (died) by LRs.(supra), the Supreme Court held that “procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the Court while doing substantial justice”. 21.3. In Lukka Srinivasa Rao (supra), the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad held that “if the Court is convinced that the documents which are sought to be produced are essential for proper and effectual adjudication of the dispute and that production of such documents at a belated stage would not prejudice the adversary party, it must overlook the failure of the party in putting forth convincing reasons”. 21.4. In Lakshmi Priya Exports4, the High court at Hyderabad observed that “the Court should firstly award appropriate costs to the other party to compensate for the delay and the Court should take up and complete the case. The Court should ensure that process does not become a protracting tactics”. 21.5. 21.4. In Lakshmi Priya Exports4, the High court at Hyderabad observed that “the Court should firstly award appropriate costs to the other party to compensate for the delay and the Court should take up and complete the case. The Court should ensure that process does not become a protracting tactics”. 21.5. In Indrajeet Singh Sethi (supra), the High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that “when the document was in the opposite party's custody, it's belated filing by the petitioner cannot be treated as malafide and the trial Court's refusal amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction vested under law”. 21.6. In Usha Kiran Saxena (supra), the High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that “rejection of document merely due to delay defeats the very object of justice delivery, Courts should permit protection of necessary documents subject to a cause”. 22.1. Petitioner-plaintiff has also filed petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, 1908 to amend the plaint with regard to Development Agreement dated 29.08.2007 bearing document No.11152/2007 vide IA No.600 of 2023. The learned trial Court vide order dated 31.12.2024 has dismissed the Amendment application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff. 22.2. Petitioner-plaintiff aggrieved by the order in IA.No.600 of 2023 dated 31.12.2024 filed CRP No.961 of 2025 before the High Court which came to be dismissed vide order dated 04.04.2025 and she carried the matter before the Supreme Court vide SLP Civil Diary No.52463 of 2025 which also came to be dismissed on 24.11.2025 leaving it open to the petitioner-plaintiff to raise all permissible contentions at the stage of preparation of final decree including those relating to the developments. 23. Petitioner-plaintiff wants to file the very same document i.e., Development Agreement dated 29.08.2007 in the suit and mark it through PW.1. 24. The learned trial Court in para No.11 of its order observed that the respondents-defendants evidence is closed on 19.01.2023 and the suit is posted to 25.01.2023 for arguments. Arguments from both the sides were heard on 23.02.2023 and the suit is posted for reply arguments of the petitioner-plaintiff on 28.04.2023. Thereafter, it is adjourned to 07.06.2023, 12.06.2023 and on which date the petitioner-plaintiff has filed all the three applications. 25. Arguments from both the sides were heard on 23.02.2023 and the suit is posted for reply arguments of the petitioner-plaintiff on 28.04.2023. Thereafter, it is adjourned to 07.06.2023, 12.06.2023 and on which date the petitioner-plaintiff has filed all the three applications. 25. Suit is of the year 2018, all the three applications came to be filed on 12.06.2023 after the conclusion of the arguments of the respondents-defendants, affidavits filed by the petitioner-plaintiff are bereft of material facts, no proper explanation is offered by her for the delay in filing the applications. 26. Power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of the record or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner (See K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985). 27. The decisions cited by the petitioner’s counsel stated supra at para Nos.21.1 to 21.6 are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and thus the ratio of those cases would not apply to the case on hand. 28. The learned trial Court has properly appreciated the contentions raised by the parties therein and rightly dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner-plaintiff and this Court is of the view that the petitioner-plaintiff has not made out any case in the CRPs. CRPs lack merits and the same are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. 29. All the CRP’s are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim Orders if any shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous petition/s stands closed.