THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1999 OF 2023

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner/defendant No.1 being aggrieved by the order dated 05.05.2023 in I.A.No.367 of 2023 in O.S.No.557 of 2020 passed by the learned V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Before the trial Court, respondent No.1/plaintiff herein filed suit vide O.S.No.557 of 2020 against defendant Nos.1 and 2 seeking the relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit, I.A.No.367 of 2023 was filed by the revision petitioner, who is defendant No.1 in O.S.No.557 of 2020, under Order XIII, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking to reject the irrelevant and inadmissible document i.e. absolute agreement of sale dated 13.12.2005, which was filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff. It is averred in the said application that at the time of institution of the suit in O.S.No.557 of 2020, respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the photocopy of the alleged ‘absolute agreement of sale dated 13.12.2005’, subsequently, when the matter came up for trial, PW-1 filed chief examination affidavit, wherein the said document finds a mention and the trial Court rejected the same. On that, respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a Memo dated 03.02.2023 annexing there with the original of the said document, without seeking leave of the Court under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, no reasons were assigned for non-furnishing of the document earlier. The petitioner/defendant No.1 objected the same on the grounds of irrelevancy and inadmissibility of the document and respondent No.1/plaintiff has neither made any mention of the document in her plaint nor she made the alleged vendor and vendee of the document as parties to the suit, as such, the question of impounding and admitting it in evidence even for collateral purpose does not arise due to prima facie irrelevancy. The said document is a work of fraud as evidenced by the certified copy of the documents filed by the petitioner/defendant along with his written statement and respondent No.1/plaintiff cannot seek any benefit or admission of a document, which is filed along with a mere memo and requested the trial Court to reject the said absolute agreement of sale dated 13.12.2005 as the same is irrelevant and inadmissible.

3. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed counter denying the averments of the said petition while admitting the averment that he filed xerox copy of the absolute agreement of sale dated 13.12.2005 at the time of filing of the suit but the averment of the petitioner that the trial Court has rejected the said document at the time of marking, is denied. Respondent No.1/plaintiff submitted that for the purpose of marking the original of the said document as exhibit, she filed the original along with a Memo dated 03.02.2023. She further submitted that the said document being a link document of her vendor, the same is a crucial document and as the suit is filed for perpetual injunction, it is not necessary to make the vendor or vendee of the said document as party to the suit, as such, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

4. Having considered the rival submissions made, the trial Court gave a finding to the effect that an unregistered deed of conveyance can be admitted in evidence in a suit for injunction for collateral purpose i.e. for the limited purpose of proving the nature of the possession of the plaintiff, of course, subject to payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty and accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner is before this Court.

5. Heard Sri Uzair Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1. In spite of service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1/plaintiff.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 submits that due to absence of both vendor and vendee of the subject document, as parties to the suit, the said document could not be acce