THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2249 of 2023

ORDER

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 06.07.2023 in I.A. No. 434 of 2022 in O.S. No. 815 of 2022 (old O.S. No. 549 of 2010) passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge at Malkajgiri.

2. The Revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit filed under Order VII Rule 1 to 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) for declaration and injunction.

3. The petitioner/plaintiff herein filed the underlying interlocutory application before the Court below seeking to reopen the evidence of PW-1 for the purpose of demarking the Ex-A6 and marking GPA bearing document No. 60/1987 dt. 20.02.1987 in respect of Sy.No. 716 to 718 as Ex.A-6.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner herein is that he is the owner of land in Sy No.716 to 718 admeasuring 354 Sq Yds at Korremal village, Ranga Reddy district being in possession uninterruptedly, till the respondent/defendant herein started interfering with his peaceful physical possession; and that the petitioner herein made a compliant to the police and also issued public notice in the year 2007 against the respondent/defendant.

5. Petitioner further contends that he filed the underlying interlocutory application under Order XIII Rule 4 CPC in the subject suit filed by him, seeking to reopen the evidence of PW-1 for the purpose of de-exhibiting Ex.A6, marked wrongly through PW.1 instead of GPA document No. 60/1987; and that the underlying interlocutory application was filed pursuant to the order dated 14.09.2022 in I.A. No. 600 of 2021.

6. It is further contended that I.A. No. 600 of 2021 was filed under Order XVIII Rule 17(2) of CPC to recall PW1 by reopening the evidence for marking the document i.e., GPA bearing docu.no. 60/1987 dt. 20.02.1987 in respect of Sy.No. 716 to 718; that pursuant to order in I.A. No. 287 of 2018, whereby the said document in O.S. No. 280 of 2008 marked as Ex. P-2 was called for from the Court of IIIrd Junior Civil Judge Court, RR Dist.; that the court of IIIrd Junior Civil Judge Court had erroneously furnished documents in respect of Sy.No. 116 to 118, instead of producing the document which was originally requested; and thus, it is essential to de-exhibit Ex.A-6 and mark the GPA dated

20.02.1987 in O.S. No. 815 of 2022 as Ex.A-6.

7. The Court below while dismissing the underlying interlocutory application, has observed that though the petitioner herein in order to prove the power of de-exhibiting relied on the order of the High Court in CRP No.1873 of 2017 dated 19.09.2017, however, failed to show proper cause for de-exhibiting Ex.A6 for the reason that the said document is a certified copy issued by sub- registrar, Uppal, cannot be said as irrelevant to the dispute; and that the petitioner/plaintiff cannot disown his own document marked as Ex.P-2 in O.S. No. 280 of 2008 and as such found no merit in considering the underlying application.

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

9. Heard Sri V.V. Raghavan learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G Narender Reddy 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, since the documents therein were crucial for adjudication of the suit. It is further contended that the Court below failed to take note that by the order dated 14.09.2022 in I.A. No. 600 of 2021 the petitioner/plaintiff was directed to file an application for reopening of evidence; and that the underlying Interlocutory application was filed pursuant to the said liberty granted.

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

12. In the instant case, the petitioner/plaintiff herein contends that Ex. A6 which was already marked through P.W.1 is to be de- marked and in its place GPA doc.no. 60/1987 relating to Sy.No. 716 to 718 is to be marked, as the