THE COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3181 of 2024

18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

Between:

P. Prabhakar (died as per LRs) and 5 others

…Petitioners/petitioners/plaintiffs

and

S.E.Srinivas and 2 others

…Respondents/respondents/defendants

ORDER:

1. Heard Mr. M.V.Rajkumar Gabriel, learned counsel for the petitioners/petitioners/plaintiffs and Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondents/respondents/ defendants.

Perused the record.

2. This Civil Revision petition is filed aggrieved by the Order dated 30.08.2024 in I.A.No.35 of 2023 in O.S.No.637 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Rent Controller-cum-XVIII Junior Civil Judge, City Small Causes Court, Secunderabad (for short ‘the Trial Court’), wherein, a petition filed under Section 33 (2) of Indian Stamps Act r/w Order XIII Rule 8 of CPC

seeking permission to pay deficit stamp duty on the original sale deed dated 20.01.1984, has been dismissed.

3. The learned Trial Court has dismissed the I.A on the sole ground of a finding given by the FSL Expert about the said document being a forged document. Since the document is forged, the learned Trial Court dismissed the petition holding that it is not proper to validate or send the sale deed for impounding when said document is a forged document.

4. Perusal of the record shows that this Court in C.R.P.No.1560 of 2023 which was filed challenging the order dated 29.03.2023 in I.A.No.47 of 2022 in the present suit has held that the original sale deed may be produced as the respondents would have all defences available including cross examination of the witnesses of the revision petitioners at the time of marking the documents including the veracity of the document and the document being fake. Relevant portion is extracted and produced below:

“6. Given the said, this Court, at this juncture does not find any strong case made out to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in either holding the impugned order be bad or stay the proceedings by passing an interim order. The petitioners/respondents before the Court below would be free to take all the defences that is otherwise available to them including the cross-examination of the witnesses on behalf of the plaintiffs at the time of marking of those documents so far as the veracity of those documents and the alleged document being fake.”

5. In view of the finding given by this Court as above, this Court sees no reason to arrive at a different finding in the present Civil Revision Petition, as the respondents can always question the veracity of the document after the document is impounded and marked. In the aforementioned fact situation, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the Order dated 30.08.2024 in I.A.No.35 of 2023 in O.S.No.637 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Rent Controller-cum-XVIII Junior Civil Judge, City Small Causes Court, Secunderabad. Consequently, I.A.No.35 of 2023 stands allowed and the original sale deed dated 20.01.1984, is directed to be sent for impounding.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

____________________

RENUKA YARA, J Dt. 18.12.2025 gvl THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3181 of 2024

18.12.2025 gvl