COMMON ORDER:

(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

Since the issue involved in both civil revision petitions is one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.

2. Heard Sri E. Esrayal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri R. Dayanand Reddy, learned counsel for respondents.

3. Aggrieved by the orders dated 05.10.2023 passed in I.A. Nos. 644 and 643 of 2023 in O.S.No.10 of 2022 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, these Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that they have filed O.S.No.10 of 2022 for specific performance based upon an agreement dated 21.08.2005. In the said suit, the petitioners have filed I.A.Nos. 644 and 643 of 2023 seeking to re-open the case and recall PW1, so as to enable him to mark the receipt, which was forming part of agreement of sale deed dated 21.08.2005. At the time of filing the suit, due to oversight, the petitioners could not mark the receipt. Without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners, the Court below dismissed both the I.As. vide order dated 05.10.2023, on the ground of delay and laches. Hence, the Civil Revision Petitions.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had contended that the trial Court was not justified in dismissing the applications. The trial Court ought to have imposed some costs and mark the document. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court Levaku Pedda Reddamma & Ors, Vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma & Anr1 wherein, it was held that the documents can be marked at any stage. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in both the civil revision petitions by setting aside the orders dated 05.10.2023 passed in I.A.Nos.644 and 643 of 2023 in O.S.No.10 of 2022 and permit the petitioners to

1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 533

re-open and recall the evidence of PW1 so as to enable him to mark the receipt annexed to the agreement of sale.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents had contended that the Court below has rightly dismissed the I.As. on the ground of delay and laches. After nearly 19 years, the petitioners have filed I.As., that too, when the suit itself was coming up for arguments, and hence, the question of allowing the petitioners to re-open and recall the evidence does not arise. Therefore, there are no merits in these Civil Revision Petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Levaku Pedda Reddamma’s case (supra), documents can be marked at any stage. The Appellate Court ought to have allowed the I.As. preferred by the petitioners by imposing some reasonable costs. Hence, the orders passed by the Appellate Court are liable to be set aside.

8. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed by setting aside the orders dated 05.10.2023 passed in I.A.Nos.644 and 643 of 2023 in O.S.No.10 of 2022 and the petitioners are permitted to re-open and recall the evidence of PW1, so as to enable them to mark the receipt annexed to the agreement of sale, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). However, it is made clear that this order will give effect provided that the Appellate Court has not delivered the judgment in the main suit till today, otherwise, the C.R.Ps. will become infructuous.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Date:22.03.2024

Tssb/rkk