IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.
Smt. K. Amaravathi, D/o.Late Hanmi Reddy @ - Appellant
Versus
Smt. K. Eeramma, W/o.Late Hanmi Reddy @ - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition.Nos.3566, 3567 And 3575 Of 2023
Decided On : 07-01-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of civil revision petitions under article 227 (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6) |
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. 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
Sudhir Kumar @ S.Baliyan Vs. Vinay Kumar G.B.
Sugandhi (Dead) by LRs. and Another Vs. P.Rajkumar represented by his Power Agent Imam Oli
The High Court emphasized the need for substantial justice over procedural technicalities, affirming that delay in producing documents should not bar justice if they are essential for adjudication.
The court established that procedural delays should not prevent the introduction of relevant evidence, prioritizing substantial justice.
Concessions made by counsel without client authority can jeopardize client rights, and such concessions may be grounds for reviewing court orders.
The court established that a defendant must produce relevant documents at the time of the written statement and provide valid reasons for any subsequent applications to introduce documents; failure t....
Government entities must meet the burden of establishing sufficient cause for condonation of delay, despite the overarching impact on public interest while upholding legal principles under Section 24....
A claim petition under CPC must establish legal rights and possession; mere assertions without evidence are insufficient to challenge execution of a decree.
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.