Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 186
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SUJANA, J.
Sana Lakshmi Devi (Died as per LRs.) and Others – Petitioners
Versus
M/s. Prime Properties – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1128, 2096, 2098, 2100, 2101, 2102 of 2023
Decided On : 05-07-2024
For the Petitioners: Satish Prasuram, S. Malla Rao.
For the Respondent: M.V. Durga Prasad.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that original documents are essential for proving claims, and reopening matters related to quashed FIRs is impermissible.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure - Civil Procedure Code - Order 16, Rules 5 & 6; Section 151 - The court interpreted the provisions allowing parties to summon documents and records necessary for adjudication, emphasizing the importance of original documents and the limits of interlocutory applications.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed suits claiming ownership of properties based on a sale deed from 1952, while defendants sought to summon original documents and records related to the deed and a related FIR, arguing the deed's validity was in question.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court's order to summon the original sale deed was justified, but summoning records from the police and forensic lab was inappropriate as it would reopen a quashed FIR.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in allowing the defendants to summon original documents and records related to a quashed FIR, and whether the plaintiff's reliance on a certified copy of a sale deed was sufficient.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while original documents are necessary for verification, summoning records related to a quashed FIR is not permissible as it would undermine the finality of the quashing order.
Result: The court partly allowed the revision petitions, setting aside orders to summon records from the police and forensic lab, while confirming the order to summon the original sale deed.
ORDER :
1. Since the I.As questioned before this Court were disposed of by the court below by way of common order, all the C.R.Ps are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit. CRP No. 1128 of 2023 is filed by the defendants 3 to 11 to set aside the docket order dated 04.04.2023 in O.S.Nos.588 to 591 of 2022. The other CRPs are filed to set aside the common order dated 19.07.2023 passed in I.A.Nos.286 to 289 of 2023 in O.S.Nos.588 to 591 of 2022 by the Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally. I.A. No. 286 of 2023 is filed U/o.16, Rule 5 & 6 r/w 151 of Civil Procedure Code (in short ‘C.P.C’) praying the Court to summon the original record pertaining to Volume No. IV (Sl.No. 785) in relation to the Document No. 707 of 1952 on the file of Sub- Registrar, Red-Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad including the thumb impressions pertaining to the said document No. 707 of 1952. I.A. No. 287 of 2023 is filed U/o.16, Rule 5 & 6 r/w 151 of C.P.C., to summon the entire record from Central Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad pertaining to FIR No. 305 of 2014 on the file of P.S. KPHB, Kukatpally. I.A. No. 288 of 2023 is filed U/o.16, Rule 5 & 6 r/w 151 of C.P.C., to summon the entire record from XIX - Metropolitan Magistrate -cum- AJCJ, Kukatpally pertaining to FIR No. 305 of 2014 on the file of P.S. KPHB, Kukatpally. I.A. No. 289 of 2023 is filed U/o.16, Rule 5 & 6 r/w 151 of C.P.C., to summon the entire record including the statement of account pertaining to bank account No. 35423850732 of Sri Siddarth Infratech and Services (I) Private Limited, from State Bank of Hyderabad, Film Nagar Branch, Hyderabad. All the said I.As were filed by respondent Nos.2 to 9 who are defendant Nos.4 to 11 in the suits and the court below has allowed all the I.As by way of common order.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in the original suit.
4. The brief common pleadings in the petitions are that on the basis of alleged original of Ex.A42 sale deed, respondent No. 1/plaintiff firm filed four suits vide O.S.Nos.588 to 591 of 2022 claiming the suit schedule properties of the respective suits and the defendants have denied the truth and validity of the alleged Ex.A42 dated 02.05.1952 shown as Document No. 707 of 1952 allegedly executed by Wali Mohammed in favour of Hashim Ali and that it is subject matter of investigation in FIR.No. 305 of 2014 on the file of K.P.H.B., Kukatpally P.S. Similar FIR.No. 51 of 2018 on the file of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad was also filed by one R. Koteshwar Rao, the alleged partner of the plaintiff firm and filing of these cases was admitted by PW1 in his cross examination. The truth and validity of original of Ex.A42 goes to the root of the matter. Hence, it is just and necessary that the record pertaining to Volume No. IV (Sl. No. 785) in relation to Document No. 707 of 1952 on the file of Sub-Registrar Office, Red-Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad including the signature and thumb impressions pertaining to registered document No. 707 of 1952 are necessary for adjudication of the matter. They are also seeking to summon the entire record pertaining to the investigation in FIR.No. 305 of 2014 on the file of P.S. KPHB, Kukatpally and that of XIX Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally, with reference to the said FIR.No. 305 of 2014. PW1 admitted that he entered into reconstruction deed with Sri Siddharth Infratech and Services (I) Private Limited to
5. The respondent No. 1 who is plaintiff in the suit filed counter with common averments stating that the defendant Nos.4 to 11 claimed to have purchased six plots from defendant No. 1 Society, have knowledge of the sale deed vide document No. 707 of 1952 dated 02.05.1952 at least from 2001 when the present batch suits were filed. Defendant No. 1 society is claiming to have purchased the subject matter of th
