IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.
Mohd. Ibrahim Ali - Appellant
Vs.
Mohd. Lateefuddin - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition Nos.1017 and 2233 of 2023
Decided On : 23-10-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of civil revision petition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. essentiality of document production. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments against the trial court's order. (Para 5) |
ORDER :
B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.
1.1 CRP.No.1017 of 2023 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 14.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.889 of 2021 in O.S.No.2227 of 2021 by the learned III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
1.2 CRP.No.2233 of 2023 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 14.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.217 of 2021 in O.S.No.2227 of 2021 by the learned III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
In CRP.No.1017 of 2023:
2.1 Petitioner herein is the petitioner – defendant, respondent herein is the respondent – plaintiff in I.A.No.889 of 2021 in O.S.No.2227 of 2021, which is filed under Order XII Rule VIII read with Section 151 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE to call the respondent - plaintiff to produce the documents i.e.,
1. Xerox Copy Of Rental Agreement executed between Defendant and Plaintiff dated 07.04.2009.
2. Xerox Copy Of Rental Agreement executed between Defendant and Plaintiff dated 05.11.2013.
3. Xerox Copy Of Rental Agreement executed between Defendant and Plaintiff dated 05.10.2014.
4. Xerox Copy Of Rental Agreement executed between Defendant and Plaintiff dated 05.09.2015.
5. Xerox Copy Of Rental Agreement executed between Defendant and Plaintiff dated 05.06.2017.
6. Xerox Copy Of Rental Agreement executed between Defendant and Plaintiff dated 05.05.2018.
In CRP.No.2233 of 2023:
2.2 Petitioner herein is the respondent – defendant, respondent herein is the petitioner – plaintiff in I.A.No.217 of 2021 in O.S.No.2227 of 2021, which is filed under Order XV-A of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE to direct the respondent - defendant to deposit rents in respect of the suit property to the credit of the suit or pay the same directly to the petitioner - plaintiff for the period of April 2020 to June 2021 total amounting to Rs.3,38,000/- and continue to pay the same pending disposal of the suit.
Grounds in CRP.No.1017 of 2023:
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Judge ought to have called for the documents, which are essential to the claim of the petitioner - defendant. On the other hand, the learned Trial Court relied on the documents in I.A.No.217 of 2021 filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order XV-A of CPC to deposit rents in respect of the suit schedule property relying on unregistered documents. The impugned order is self-contradictory in nature and completely antithetical to the probabilities of the case and prayed to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.889 of 2021 in O.S.No.2227 of 2021, dated 14.09.2022.
Grounds in CRP.No.2233 of 2023:
4.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the original copies of the documents were essential to support the claim of the petitioner - defendant. The learned Trial Judge failed to consider that the respondent herein – plaintiff has admitted in his counter that the documents of rental deeds were unregistered, insufficiently stamped and inadmissible in evidence as they filed the xerox copies, then the Court ought not to have marked the documents and ought not to have granted relief of deposit of arrears of rent.
4.2 The learned Trial Court ought to have seen that Ex.P1 are the counter foils of rental receipts which were marked without production of the original receipts and moreover the respondent herein – petitioner - plaintiff failed to produce the original documents. Ex.P4 is the returned postal cover, which itself is a proof that the petitioner herein - defendant has not received the notice sent by the respondent herein – petitioner - plaintiff. When the petitioner herein - defendant is in occupation over the suit schedule property, the question of return of the registered postal cover with an endorsement that ‘no such person is residing in this house’ do
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.