COMMON ORDER :

Being aggrieved by the common order dated

30.03.2022 passed in I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2020 in O.S.No.36 of 2006 by learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, by which the Court below dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.36 of 2006, these Civil Revisions Petitions are referred under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

2. I.A.No.1 of 2020 is filed by the petitioner herein under Order XVIII, Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short (cid:145)C.P.C.(cid:146)) with a prayer to recall PW.1 for further examination. I.A.No.2 of 2020 is filed under Section 151 of C.P.C. with a prayer to reopen the evidence of the plaintiff for receiving additional documents and for further examination of PW.1. I.A.No.3 of 2020 is filed under Order VII, Rule 14(3) of C.P.C. seeking leave of the Court to file additional documents. All these applications were opposed by the respondents/defendants. The grounds under which the above referred revisions filed are one and the same and that the arguments advanced by both learned counsel in these Civil Revision Petitions are also common. Therefore, it is proposed to dispose of all these Civil Revision Petitions vide a common order.

3. As can be seen from the record, while filing the above referred interlocutory applications, one Sri Col Ranga Rao Narne filed his affidavit in support of the petitions and submitted that O.S.No.36 of 2006 has been filed for specific performance of contract executed by respondent No.1/defendant No.1 in pursuance of agreement of sale dated 10.05.1991. It is alleged by the petitioner in the said affidavit that respondent No.1/defendant No.1 executed agreement of sale by receiving major sale consideration by representing that he was lawful owner of the suit schedule property and offered the same for sale. At the time of said offer, respondent No.1/defendant No.1 furnished photocopy of partition agreement dated 03.05.1972 in support of his claim over the property sought to be sold. In view of the said document, the petitioner/plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale but subsequently, after filing of the suit, respondent No.1/defendant No.1 has filed written statement denying his right over the property. The said Sri Col Ranga Rao Narne was examined as PW.1 before the Court below and got marked all the documents that were filed along with the plaint.

4. Since the respondents/defendants disputed with regard to right of respondent No.1 over the property, the petitioner/plaintiff verified their record and found a crucial document pertaining to the schedule property, which was mixed with other files. The petitioner has stated that it was the document supplied by respondent No.1/defendant No.1 while claiming the right over the property. Therefore, it is crucial document to prove his claim as such the petitioner sought leave of the Court below to file the document and for the purpose of marking of the same, the petitioner sought for reopen the suit and also for recalling PW.1.

5. The respondents/defendants opposed these petitions. Counter has been filed by respondent No.1/defendant No.1 denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and he has further pleaded that there was a delay of more than 14 years for filing the above referred document and even if that document was taken into consideration, it is a photostat copy of agreement dated 03.05.1972. It was only an agreement for partition of the properties but not a partition deed. Therefore, it cannot be received in evidence since it is hit by Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Respondent No.1 has further submitted that the petitioner did not file any proof to show that the partition agreement was implemented in the revenue records. Therefore, the above referred document may not prove the right of respondent No.1 over the schedule property. While denying the other contents of the affidavit, respondent No.1 further stated that the alleg