Admitted facts under the Indian Evidence Act do not require proof, and reopening evidence late in trial is unnecessary unless it directly impacts core claims.

COMMON ORDER: 

Heard Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for the petitioner. As the causes in the revision petitions are intertwined, the petitions are heard together for admission.

2. C.R.P.No.3467 of 2024 is filed against the order, dated 28.10.2024 passed in I.A.No.451 of 2024 whereby prayed for reopening the evidence of the revision petitioner/plaintiff for marking of certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.5290 of 2020, dated 18.06.2020 and;

3. C.R.P.No.3489 of 2024 is filed against the order, dated 28.10.2024 passed in I.A.No.452 of 2024 with a prayer to recall the PW1 for marking of certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.5290 of 2020 dated 18.06.2020 and;

4. C.R.P.No.3496 of 2024 is filed against the order, dated 28.10.2024 passed in I.A.No.453 of 2024 seeking issuance of summons to the Panchayat Secretary for production of demand register of H.No.4-98, for comparison of copy of mutation proceedings and the ownership certificate, dated 12.02.2019.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner has filed a suit vide O.S.No.164 of 2020 on the file of Junior Civil Judge at Sircilla, seeking partition of the schedule ‘A’ & ‘B’ properties among the revision petitioner/plaintiff and the respondents/defendants. Though the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing No.5290 of 2020, dated 18.06.2020, which was executed between the defendant No.1 and defendant No.10 in respect of suit schedule ‘A’ property, has been filed along with plaint, inadvertently the same was not got marked during the examination of the plaintiff as PW1. In the suit, as quashment of the sale deed has been prayed, bringing that documents on to file is essential. For that purpose, recall of revision petitioner as PW1 is necessary. Additionally, production of demand register and comparison with the copies of mutation proceedings and ownership certificate issued by the revenue authority is required to establish the collusive acts of the defendants in respect of schedule ‘A’ property. For this reason the three interlocutory applications were filed.

6. As per the learned counsel, though these aspects have been pleaded, the trial Court disregarded the imperative grounds and by observing that the petition has been filed at belated stage and the revision petitioner is making all efforts to drag on the proceedings and without deliberating the merits dismissed the said petitions. Hence prayed for intervention in the revisions.

7. Further, during submissions, learned counsel for the revision petitioner fairly submitted that defendant Nos.1 & 10 in their counter had accepted the execution of registered sale deed in respect of suit schedule ‘A’ property and took stand that as it is an admitted document specifically bringing the document on to record is not required.

8. Nonetheless, learned counsel pointed to the apprehension that as the defendant’s admissions and non necessity of brining the document on to record has not been affirmed in the impugned order, the trial Court may at later stage, adversely count this factor, while determining the issue. Further explained that the documents which are intended to be summoned through the Panchayat Secretary are also pertaining to same schedule ‘A’ property to make out the mutation proceeding among the defendants.

9. I have carefully considered the submissions.

10. The execution of registered sale deed by respondent No.1/defendant No.1 in favour of respondent No.10 is undisputed as the counter filed by defendant Nos.1 and 10, reopening and recall of PW1, specific statement has been made. As per Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872/Section 53 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (for short ‘BSA Act’), the admitted facts need not be proved. Thus marking of sale deed to prove the fact of execution would be dispensable. Further, basing on the revision petitioner/plaintiff’s claim for share in the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties the issues said to have formulat