HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4199 of 2025 DATE OF ORDER 10.12.2025 Between

1. M.Venkataiah S/o. Pedda Savaraiah, aged About 48 years, occupation:TSRTC Driver, R/o.Nagavaram village of Wanaparthy Mandal.

... petitioner And P.Gopalamma W/o. Venkateshwar Reddy, Aged about 50 years, occupation:School Correspondent, R/o. Wanaparthy.

...respondent

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed with the following prayer:

“…begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition being aggrieved by the Docket Order dated 09.09.2025 in O.S.No.44 of 2023 passed by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge at Wanaparthy (Old O.S.No.128 of 2013 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Wanapartthy for the following among other…”

2. Petitioner is defendant in O.S.No.44 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.128 of 2013) on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Wanaparthy. Petitioner-defendant is aggrieved by the docket order, dated 09.09.2025 and the same is as follows:-

“Further, the Occupancy Rights Certificate was in original issued in the name of the plaintiff by concerned department after due enquiry maybe basing on simple sale deed but, the same can be decided at the time of trial whether it is validly issued or not. Now, at this stage, the objection is only for marking, this Court cannot go into merits and validity of said document it is original issued by concerned department by proper procedure so admissible in evidence.”

3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the trial Court fell into error in permitting the plaintiff to mark the documents. Documents, put up for marking, are simple sale deed dated 19.01.1985 and an Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) issued on the basis of the simple sale deed. It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner herein (defendant in the suit) that, in a suit for injunction, marking of documents such as a simple sale deed and ORC cannot be permitted even for collateral purposes.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent herein (plaintiff in suit) submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court. That the trial Court has specifically held that the same can be decided at the time of trial, whether it is a valid issue or not and that at the stage of objection for marking the documents, the trial Court cannot go into the merits and validity of the said documents.

5. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the submissions.

6. A suit for perpetual injunction came to be filed bearing O.S.No.128 of 2013, re-numbered as O.S.No.44 of 2023, pending on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Wanaparthy. It was the case of respondent herein (plaintiff in suit) that he is the owner of land in Sy.No.142/Ru to an extent of Ac.0.06 guntas situated at Nagavaram Village, Wanaparthy Mandal, and that respondent–plaintiff purchased the said land from one Mr. Ram Reddy, S/o Nagi Reddy, by way of a private sale deed bearing Document No.507/1990. That the said land being in the nature of inam, respondent–plaintiff was issued an ORC. It is the case of respondent–plaintiff that petitioner–defendant, on 02.12.2013, tried to erase the bunds by engaging a tractor and threatened to occupy the land of plaintiff. This being the cause, the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner–defendant came to be filed. Respondent/plaintiff, at the stage of marking of documents, sought for marking of simple sale deed dated 19.01.1985 and ORC issued on the basis of the said simple sale deed.

7. It is not in dispute that the simple sale deed has been properly stamped by impounding. In a suit for injunction, it is for the plaintiff to demonstrate, as to how he has come into possession of the property. For this purpose, respondent–plaintiff sought to mark the documents, i.e., the simple sale deed and the ORC. The same was objected by petitioner–defendant. The trial Court,