THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1041 of 2024

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 27.02.2024 in I.A.No.219 of 2024 in O.S. No. 125 of 2022 passed by the II Additional District & Session’s Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

2. The revision petitioner herein is the defendant No.2 to 5 in the suit filed for partition and separate possession. The respondent No.1 herein is plaintiff in the suit.

3. The suit was originally instituted in the year 2008. At the stage of further evidence of the petitioners/defendant No.2 to 5, the petitioners have filed an underlying application vide I.A. No. 219 of 2024 in O.S. No. 125 of 2022 seeking to receive the documents as per list on record while condoning delay, under Order VIII Rule

1-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’).

4. The trial Court dismissed the underlying interlocutory application, holding that since the questioned document i.e. agreement dated 02.12.1985 was already available in the record, thus, the question of misplacing and tracing out is found to be false; that alleged document being an agreement needs to be exhibited in a suit for specific performance but cannot be received as evidence in a suit for partition.

5. The trial Court held that the alleged document cannot be received as it is hit by Section 17 and 49 of Indian Registration Act; that the petitioners cannot tender the alleged document for the second time for filing when it was once rejected to be received on objection, without challenging the rejection at relevant point of time.

6. The trial Court also held that the alleged document cannot be received as the petitioners’ affidavit was found to be not verified and the same is in contrary to Order XIX Rule 3 CPC; and that as the alleged document is conveying rights in favor of other party it cannot be considered in a suit for partition between the parties to the suit. Accordingly, the Court below held that the said document sought to be received cannot be accepted as evidence.

7. Aggrieved by the above said order dated 27.02.2024 the petitioners herein have preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

9. The petitioner contend that the impugned order is contrary to law and the trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC by not receiving the said document in the subject suit, despite it being relevant and necessary evidence to the main petition; hence, the said document sought to be received is essential for the effective adjudication of the main suit; and that the trial Court erred in misapplying settled legal principles regarding receiving of documents.

10. Per contra, the respondent/plaintiff herein contend that the said document cannot be received as the document is forged and fabricated; and that the said document is inadmissible as the recitals of the document speaks about transfer of rights. Further, the respondent No.9/defendant No.12 herein contend that the present petition is filed without assigning reasons and by not complying the mandatory provisions under Order XIX Rule 3 CPC at the end of the case after closing the plaintiff evidence with an intention to cause prejudice to the adversary party. Thus, the application filed lacks bona fides and is liable to be dismissed.

11. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

12. In the present case that though the petitioners are prayed for receiving the said document in evidence, it is to be noted that the since the said document is very much available seeking to receive the document, claiming the same as having misplaced and traced out is found to be not true. Thus, the petitioners herein cannot seek to receive the documents as evidence for further adjudication of the matter.

13. It is pertinent to note that sub rule (1) of Rule 1-A of Order VIII casts a duty on