THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2414 and 2415 of 2022

COMMON ORDER

Since these Civil Revision Petitions revolve around a

common issue, they were heard together and being disposed by this

common order.

2. C.R.P. No.2414 of 209522 is filed aggrieved by the order dated 28.09.2022 in I.A. No.73 of 2022 in I.A No. 41 of 2022 in I.A. No. 05 of 2022 in O.S. No. 160 of 2022 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, at Medchal Malkajgiri (for short

‘the Trial Court’).

3. C.R.P. No.2415 of 20222 is filed aggrieved by the order dated 28.09.2022 in I.A. No.74 of 2022 in I.A No. 42 of 2022 in I.A. No. 06 of 2022 in O.S. No. 160 of 2022 passed by the

Additional Senior Civil Judge, at Medchal Malkajgiri.

4. The revision petitioner herein in both the CRP Nos.2414 and 2415 of 2022 is the plaintiff in the suit filed vide O.S. No. 160 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

(for short ‘the Code’).

5. The petitioner/plaintiff herein filed the underlying interlocutory applications before the Court below for the purpose of demarking the Ex. P-1 i.e. Memorandum of Partition filed by defendant No.36 to 38.

6. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner herein is that he filed the above suit in respect of subject property; and subsequently the respondent Nos.36 to 38 filed application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC to vacate the injunction order passed by the Court below and during the marking of documents a memorandum of partition which is a unregistered document was marked as Ex.P-1 due to oversight without noticing, that it is inadmissible in evidence. As such, the petitioner herein has filed the underlying interlocutory application under Order XIII Rule 3, 4 and 6 CPC in the subject suit, seeking to demark the Ex. P-1 i.e.

Memorandum of Partition.

7. The trial Court observed that the scope of the impugned document is limited, as it was produced only in the interlocutory application and not in the main suit. It was further noted that though the petitioner’s counsel had knowledge of the submission of document, the underlying application is filed at a belated stage. Despite the document being alleged as unregistered, the trial Court recorded the said objection and allowed the document to be tentatively marked for the purpose of deciding the matter in the final judgment. Thus, the trial Court held that the alleged document cannot be said as irrelevant to the dispute and found no merit in considering the underlying application.

8. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

9. Heard M/s. Resu Law Office learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri N. Manohar learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff herein contends that the Court below ought to have allowed the application by assigning proper and valid reasons, since such unregistered document marked by the trial Court would impact on the adjudication of the suit.

11. Per Contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents contend that the underlying application filed under Order XIII Rule 3, 4, 6 CPC by the petitioner is not maintainable, as the alleged document is of the year 1959 and the Court below under Section 90 of Indian Evidence Act may presume it as genuine; that the underlying application is filed only with an intention to drag the matter. 12. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

13. In the instant case, though the petitioner/plaintiff herein contends that Ex. P-1 stands already admitted on record vide order dated 28.09.2022, and for the reason that the memorandum of partition being unregistered document was marked by the trial Court, the petitioner/plaintiff herein has filed the underlying application for the purpose of de-exhibiting Ex.P-1 on account of having unusual and improper impact on the adjudication of the suit. However, it is to be noted that the petitioner/plaintiff herein failed to prove that the document marked as Ex.P-1 is irrele