THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3654 OF 2025 Ms. Gundlapalli VSS Sruthi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

ORDER:

1. The Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order dated 29.08.2025 in I.A.No.189 of 2024 in O.S.No.1154 of 2016 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, filed by the petitioner for demarking Ex.A5/ a Cash receipt, dated 16.12.2014. The petitioner herein is the sole defendant in the said Suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff, seeking for recovery of possession.

2. By the impugned order, the Trial Court dismissed the said I.A. filed by the petitioner on the ground that the Cash Receipt, dated 16.12.2014/Ex.A5 was marked in the presence of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant and that the counsel failed to take any objection of the marking of the said document at the relevant point of time. The Trial Court also held that the petitioner/defendant further confronted Ex.P5 to PW1 during cross- examination and had hence accepted the admissibility of the document in the course of Trial. The impugned order further records that the petitioner’s I.A. was filed only after several adjournments, which clearly indicates that the objection now taken is only afterthought. The Trial Court also found that the Ex.A5 was executed on a Rs.100/- non-judicial stamp paper, which is in excess of the value prescribed under the relevant law for such a receipt.

3. This Court, considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner/defendant and considered the impugned order. But this Court does not find any error in the reasons given by the Trial Court. Admittedly, the respondent filed the said Suit in the year 2016 and the defendant filed the I.A. in the year 2024, seeking for demarking of Ex.A5/ a Cash receipt, dated 16.12.2014 i.e., after eight (8) years. It is relevant that the document had been marked in the presence of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant at the stage of evidence and the learned counsel had not taken any objection at the relevant point of time. The document also forms the part of cross-examination of PW1. The cross-examination was done by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant.

4. This Court, therefore finds that the reasons given by the Trial Court that the I.A. filed by the petitioner/defendant was not only to de-mark the documents but to stall the trial of the Suit. As stated above, the I.A was filed after eight long years from filing of the Suit.

5. There is no merit in CRP.No.3654 of 2025, hence, the C.R.P. along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J DATE: 06.11.2025

prat