THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 3701 and 3767 of 2023

ORDER

Since, the parties are one and the same in the Civil Revision Petitions they are being disposed of this common Order.

1. These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the order dated 20.09.2023 passed in I.A. No.288 of 2022 and I.A. No.44 of 2022 in O.S. No. 253 of 2022 on the file of the III Additional District Judge-Cum- II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge- Cum-Principal Family Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District, At Kukatpally (for short ‘the trial Court’).

2. The revision petitioners herein are the petitioners in the underlying interlocutory applications and defendants in the suit filed by the respondent herein vide O.S. No. 253 of 2022 for perpetual injunction.

3. C.R.P. No. 3701 of 2023 is filed aggrieved by the order dated. 20.09.2023 passed in I.A. No.288 of 2022 filed by the petitioners herein under Order XIII Rule 10 of C.P.C seeking call for records of the suit in O.S. No. 928 of 2014 to peruse the same for further cross examination with regard to the documents of ex- parte Decree and Judgment dated 05-11-2014 in O.S. No. 928 of

2014.

4. C.R.P. No. 3767 of 2023 is filed aggrieved by the order dated. 20.09.2023 passed in I.A. No.44 of 2022 filed by the petitioners herein under Order XVIII Rule 17 of C.P.C to recall PW.1 for further cross examination.

5. Heard, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for respondent, and perused the record.

6. The case of the petitioners herein is that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property, having purchased it through a registered Sale Deed dated 26.02.2004 from Smt. Sulochana; that since the date of purchase, they have been in continuous, peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property; that the respondent herein basing her claim on an unregistered sale deed purportedly executed by one Sri John Devid Pitter on 10.01.2014, filed a suit vide O.S. No. 253 of 2022 (old No. 510 of 2016) for perpetual injunction against the petitioners.

7. The petitioners contend that respondent filed a suit for specific performance vide O.S. No. 928 of 2014 against the said one John Devid Pitter and managed to obtain an ex parte decree on 05.01.2014; that the Respondent claimed in the plaint filed vide O.S. No. 928 of 2014 that the original title deed dated 08.03.1983 was misplaced, which casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the transaction; that the Petitioners despite being the actual owners, were not impleaded in that suit; that the decree appears to have been fraudulently obtained; and that based on the said decree, a sale deed was executed in favour of the respondent on 25.04.2015.

8. The Petitioners contend that they came to know about the ex parte decree in O.S. No. 928 of 2014 only after changing their counsel and thereafter applied for certified copies in O.S. No. 928 of 2014 but were not provided with Exhibits A2 and A3 marked therein. As such, the Petitioners filed I.A. No. 288 of 2022 in O.S. No. 510 of 2016 under Order XIII Rule 10 CPC to call for the records and I.A. No. 45 of 2022 to reopen the evidence of PW1 and I.A. No. 44 of 2022 to recall PW1 for further cross-examination.

9. The Petitioners contend that the they invoked the provisions of Order XIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, before the trial court to summon the complete record of O.S. No. 928 of 2015 for perusal and proper adjudication of the present case stating that the records of O.S. No. 928 of 2015, particularly Exhibits A2 and A3 are essential for the just and effective adjudication of the present suit. Though the Petitioners have procured partial certified copies of the record, crucial exhibits have not been furnished despite due efforts. The said exhibits are necessary to establish the fraudulent conduct of the respondent in securing an ex parte decree without impleading the petitioners i.e. the true and lawful owners of the suit schedule property.

10. The petiti