SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Telangana) 200

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY
For the Respondent: M A K MUKHEED

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.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 14, Order 18 Rule 17, Section 151 - Three Civil Revision Petitions filed challenging an order dismissing applications to reopen the case, recall a witness, and receive a document - Applications rejected on the grounds of lack of sufficient reasons for delay and absence of material facts in the affidavits - The court emphasized that procedural hurdles must not impede substantial justice. (Paras 1-3, 10-26)

(B) Jurisdiction - The power of the High Court under Article 227 should be exercised sparingly and only in cases of clear error or jurisdictional flaw. (Paras 20 and 26)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested the dismissal of applications in a civil suit concerning a Development Agreement dated 29.08.2007, alleging suppression of relevant documents by the defendants and asserting the need for a fair adjudication. (Paras 7.1 and 11)

Findings of Court:
The learned trial court did not err in dismissing the applications, as the petitioner failed to sufficiently demonstrate the necessity and timeliness of the requested documents and did not provide compelling reasons for delay. (Paras 28)

Issues: Whether the learned trial court erred in dismissing applications to reopen the case, recall a witness, and receive documents.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found no illegality or perversity in the trial court's judgment, affirming the principle that procedural adherence is paramount to uphold justice.

Result: CRPs dismissed.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top