##PAGE1##

I N THE HI GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE P.SAM KOSHY

CI VI L REVI SI ON PETI TI ON No.4364 of 2025

DATE OF ORDER: 31.12.2025

Between :

Sanaka Sridhar,

S/o. Late Sri Sanaka Haranath,

Age of 49, Occ: Private Employee,

R/o. H.No.1-3-176/4/G/2,

Padmasahali Colony, Gandhi Nagar,

Hyderabad – 500080.

…Petitioner

AND

Sanaka Anil Kumar,

S/o. Late Sri Sanaka Haranath,

Age of 49, Occ: Not Known and others.

…Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Mr. P.Achut Rama Shastry, learned counsel for the

petitioner; and Modali Eswara Prasad, learned counsel for the

respondents.

2. The present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging

Page 2 of 5

the order dated 19.11.2025, in I.A.No.773 of 2025 in O.S.No.1056

of 2017, passed by the learned XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City

Civil Court, Hyderabad.

3. Vide the impugned order; the Trial Court dismissed the

I.A.No.773 of 2025 preferred by the petitioner under Order VII Rule

14(1) read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for

short ‘CPC’) seeking to receive the documents in support of his

evidence.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is

that vide I.A.No.773 of 2025 the petitioner tried to bring on record

around 22 documents relevant for adjudication of the dispute, more

particularly a strong piece of evidence in his favour, but the Trial

Court refused the same vide the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his

contentions, relied upon the following decisions:

1) Kapil Kumar Sharma vs. Lalit Kumar Sharma and

another

2) Pradeep Bailey vs. Gilma Daniel

1 (2013) 14 Supreme Court Cases 612

2 CM(M) 1506/2023 & CM APPL. 47944/2023 STAY

Page 3 of 5

6. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents

contended that the I.A. filed by the petitioner has been rightly

rejected by the Trial Court, more particularly for the reason that

the petitioner has not given any plausible explanation for having

not produced these 22 documents earlier in the course of

proceedings of the suit before the Trial Court. He further contended

that the petitioner already in the year 2024, before the evidence

commenced, had moved I.A.No.667 of 2024 wherein voluminous

documents were sought to be brought on record and which was

allowed by the Trial Court. Even at that point of time the petitioner

did not think it proper for producing these 22 documents, and now

after the evidences of both the parties are closed, in order to

improve upon his case has moved the present I.A. seeking for

receiving of the 22 documents.

7. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on

perusal of records, undoubtedly the suit is one which has been filed

by the petitioner seeking for declaration of title and possession.

The suit was filed in the year 2017 and the suit has now reached its

fag end i.e. it is posted for arguments of the parties. It is at this

stage vide I.A.No.773 of 2025, which is filed on 24.04.2025, the

Page 4 of 5

petitioner seeks to bring on record the documents in support of his

evidence.

8. At the outset, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Civil

Revision Petition for the reason that, firstly, there does not seem to

be any plausible explanation provided by the petitioner as to what

prevented him in obtaining the copies earlier and relying upon

them as his evidence in support of his claim. Secondly, there is also

no explanation provided as to why these documents were not

produced when the petitioner earlier filed voluminous documents

vide I.A.No.667 of 2024 and which stood allowed. Thirdly, from the

conduct of the petitioner it appears that it is nothing but to protract

the proceedings and also is an attempt made for improving upon

his case after the evidence of the parties was closed in the course

of trial. Lastly, the reference of any of these 22 documents which

the petitioner is trying to bring on record is not there in pleadings

of the petitioner either in the plaint or in any