The court upheld the trial Court's dismissal of applications to introduce documents due to lack of valid grounds for delay, affirming the importance of timely evidence submission under procedural rules.

ORDER :

(K. MANMADHA RAO, J.)

As the issue involved in all the civil revision petitions is one and the same, these matters are taken up together for disposal by this Common Order.

2. The petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.114 of 2013, which was filed by the plaintiffs before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool (for short “the trial Court”) for declaration of title and for mandatory injunction for removal of the constructions made by defendant No.6 in the plaint schedule open site. The present impugned Interlocutory applications were filed before the trial Court viz., (i) I.A No.616 of 2024 in O.S.No.114 of 2013 was filed under Order VIII Rule 1(A) 3 and Section 151 of CPC seeking to receive documents by condoning the delay and mark the same on behalf of the petitioners/defendants; (ii) I.A.No.615 of 2024 in O.S.No.114 of 2013 was filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to recall DW.2 for the purpose of marking the documents shown in I.A.No.616 of 2024; and (iii) I.A No.614 of 2024 in O.S No.114 of 2023 was filed under Section 151 CPC to reopen the petitioners/defendants evidence to enable them to let in evidence on their behalf. All the Interlocutory Applications were dismissed by the trial Court vide separate orders dated 17.10.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petitions came to be filed.

3.. Heard Mr. U Venkata Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Varun Byreddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the trial Court erred in dismissing the Interlocutory Applications on the ground that there are no valid grounds to allow the applications. He submits that the trial Court also failed to consider that the petitioners/defendants relying on the documents which are sought to be produced before the Court and also failed to appreciate that the pahani copy issued by the Tahsildar, Kurnool Mandal, Revenue Office dated 25.6.2019 in original and adangal copy/pahani issued by the same Tahsildar, Kurnool dated 9.9.2024 are the important documents related to title of the petitioners/defendants herein. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the above referred documents were very important and vital for declaring the petitioners/ defendants as the real owners of the suit schedule property and that the view taken by the trial Court is clearly erroneous and therefore not sustainable. Therefore, the trial Court is not justified in dismissing the applications and hence prayed to allow the present civil revision petitions by setting aside the impugned orders passed by the trial Court.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the suit is of the year 2013 and the petitioners herein have come up with these applications in the year 2024. He submits that there existed a house with Municipal Door No.19-283-AS in the plaint schedule open site and stood mutated in deceased 1st plaintiff name. but, whereas the petitioners/defendants contended that it is a Thalimkhana/Open site and it belongs to them and the above said Door Number belongs to a third party by name B. Krishnaveni but not deceased 1st plaintiff. Simultaneously, petitioners/ defendants relied on Ex.B2 Gift Deed said to be pertaining to plaint schedule property. Pending the suit in the year 2019 defendants claim to have got the said Door No.19-283-A5 of first plaintiff, canceled by making application to Municipal Corporation unilaterally behind the back of plaintiffs. Now even as per the documents sought to be filed by the petitioners/defendants seem to have got changed even the nature of land in Sy.No.17/2 as "Bavi" when in fact it has always been farming land. He further submits that, In the first round of litigation between parties in O.S.No.634/2006, which was filed for bare injunction and on dismissal of the same, A.S.No.38/2013 was preferred and