Timeliness and relevance of evidence are critical in legal proceedings; mere oversight does not justify reopening closed evidence.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition No.2293 of 2025; Civil Revision Petition No.2296 of 2025 and Civil Revision Petition No.2332 of 2025

COMMON ORDER :

Since the issue arising out of the instant Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same and the parties thereto are also the same, they are being heard and decided by this Common Order.

2. Heard Mr.Muhammad Veqar Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner in all the Revisions.

3. For convenience the facts in Civil Revision Petition No.2293 of 2025 are discussed hereunder.

4. Civil Revision Petition No.2293 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Common Order dated 11.06.2025 in E.A.Nos.3, 4 and 5 of 2025 in E.A.No.5 of 2017 in E.P.No.7 of 2016 passed by the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, (for short, ‘the impugned order’).

5. Vide the impugned common order, the Trial Court dismissed all the above three E.A.s., i.e., E.A.No.3 of 2025 which were filed by the petitioner under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court to re-call CW.1 for marking of documents as exhibits; E.A.No.4 of 2025 which was filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court to re-open the evidence; and E.A.No.5 of 2025 which was filed by the petitioner under Rule 7(5) of R.C. Rules praying the Trial Court to receive the document, viz., certified copy of judgment and decree dated 13.20.2020 in O.S.No.511 of 2017 as evidence of the petitioner / claim petitioner.

6. The instant batch of Civil Revision Petitions flow from an execution proceedings, viz., E.P.No.7 of 2016 arising out of O.S.No.991 of 2016 which was filed by the petitioner herein before the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, seeking for relief of perpetual injunction by restraining the landlord, his heirs, men, servants, agents and person or persons from interfering with the suit schedule property. In the said E.P. proceedings, the evidence of petitioner herein stood closed on 05.09.2024 whereafter the petitioner had submitted that there is no further evidence which he intends to lead, and therefore the matter was posted for final arguments. It was at that stage when the instant E.A.s, viz., E.A.Nos.3, 4 and 5 of 2025 were filed by the petitioner seeking for marking of a document which is said to be a certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2020 in O.S.No.511 of 2017. The said applications were filed by the petitioner as late as on 13.03.2025 and, as stated earlier, the evidence of petitioner stood closed on 05.09.2024.

7. Another fact which is revealed from the proceedings is that the aforesaid certified copy which the petitioner intends to mark was obtained by him almost a year ago, i.e., on 13.02.2024, vide an application which he has made on 29.01.2024. That is the period when the evidence of petitioner had not been closed, and which fact further indicates that when the evidence of petitioner was recorded the petitioner was very well aware of the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2020 in O.S.No.511 of 2017. Therefore, the petitioner had a certified copy with him yet he did not feel it to be either marked or referred to in his evidence. It was in this context that the above three E.A.s were filed and the learned executing Court found that no justifiable reasons have been assigned while moving the said applications except taking the plea of inadvertence and oversight.

8. Considering the reasons assigned by the Trial Court more particularly looking into the factual developments that have transpired pending the E.P.No.7 of 2016 before the Executing Cou