THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition No.1803 of 2025

ORDER :

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/

defendants herein under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the common order dated 30.04.2025 in I.A.No.187 of 2025 and I.A.No.188 of 2025 in O.S.No.5 of 2016 (for short, ‘the impugned order’) passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- XIV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Hayathnagar.

2. Heard Mr.Kambalapalli Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. Vide the impugned common order, the Trial Court dismissed the above two I.A.s, viz., I.A.No.187 of 2025 in O.S.No.5 of 2016 which were filed by petitioners / defendants herein under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Court to re-open evidence of DW.2; and I.A.No.188 of 2025 in O.S.No.5 of 2016 which was filed by the petitioners / defendants herein under Order VIII Rule 1-A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Court to receive the documents mentioned in the appended list and to mark the same as exhibits.

4. Perusal of the record would show that the above suit, viz., O.S.No.5 of 2016, was filed by the respondent No.1 (plaintiff) herein under Order VII Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking for relief of declaration of title and for a perpetual injunction and also to declare the registered documents which are in possession of the defendants in the suit to be null and void.

5. The suit is one which was filed as early as in the year 2016 and as such it is more than 9 years old and pending consideration for hearing by the Trial Court. When the suit has reached its fag end, the above two I.A.s were filed by the petitioners / defendants herein.

6. However, the instant Revision is confined to the impugned order passed in I.A.No.188 of 2025 in O.S.No.5 of 2016 by the Trial Court. The said I.A. is filed by the petitioners / defendants herein with a prayer to receive the documents mentioned in the appended list and to mark the same as exhibits.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners / defendants primarily contended that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the relevancy of the documents; the documents are so relevant that they are enough to prove their contention and their defence; the documents in question are material and crucial documents so far as the interest of the petitioners / defendants are concerned and also to prove that the respondent No.1 / plaintiff’s case is not a bona fide and genuine case; the Xerox / photocopies of these documents were already filed at the time of filing of Written Statement and the certified copies thereof are now being filed only as a replacement of the Xerox copy to prove that these documents are genuine documents; and therefore, prayed the Court to allow the Revision.

8. Having heard the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners / defendants what is necessary at this juncture is to take note of the fact that the suit was filed seeking for declaration of title and for perpetual injunction in January, 2016. Thereafter, the petitioners / defendants herein have entered appearance before the Trial Court and submitted their Written Statement in the year 2016 itself making their stand, defence and contentions clear. The suit was further proceeded by the Trial Court and after framing of issues, evidence on the respondents / defendants’ side was closed, and the evidence of respondent No.1 / plaintiff was closed on 05.07.2024. In spite of repeated opportunities being granted by the Trial Court to the petitioners / defendants to adduce evidence, they failed to come forward and therefore the Trial Court forfeited the right of the petitioners / defendants to lead evidence and posted the matter for arguments to 14.08.2024.

9. In the interregnum, the petitioners / defendants herein have filed two I.A.s, viz., I.A.No.768 of 2024 in O.S.No.5 of 2016 under Or