HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order, dated

17.12.2024, passed by the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in I.A.No.2402 of 2024 in O.S.No.213 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the application filed under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) r/w Section 151 of CPC to receive the Will deed, dated 08.02.2024, and to mark the same as exhibit was allowed.

2. Heard Sri B.Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant No.2 and Sri V.Pradeep, learned counsel for respondent No.1/defendant No.1.

3. Petitioner herein is defendant No.2, respondent No.1 herein is the defendant No.1, respondent No.2 herein is the plaintiff and respondent No.3 herein is defendant No.3 in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

4. Briefly stated the facts of the case relevant for adjudication of the present Civil Revision Petition are that plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.213 of 2018 against the defendants for partition and separate possession of the plaint ‘A’ to ‘C’ schedule properties. The plaintiff and the defendant are brothers. Defendant No.1 entered appearance and filed written statement specifically contending that the suit schedule properties are the self- acquired properties of their father; that their father executed a Will deed, dated 08.02.2014, and got it registered on 26.02.2004; and that as the plaintiff and other defendants are signatories to the said Will deed, the same is binding on all of them and hence, on the sole ground itself, the suit is not maintainable and sought to dismiss the suit.

5. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 filed an application vide 1.A.No.2402 of 2024 under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) r/w Section 151 of CPC to receive the Will deed dated 08.02.2004 and to mark the same as exhibit. Defendant No.2 filed counter resisting the said application. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 17.12.2024 allowed the said application with an observation that the issues whether Will deed is executed by Dubbaka Nataraja Chary or not, and the admissibility and relevancy of the said document can be decided at the time of trial and defendant No.2 has every right to challenge the said document. Aggrieved by the impugned order, defendant No.2 filed the present revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.2 submitted that defendant No.1 had already referred to the alleged Will deed dated 08.02.2004 in the written statement filed by him on 12.12.2019, thereby clearly indicating his knowledge of the said document at that earlier stage, but he filed the present application after a lapse of six years from the date of filing of the suit and that too, after completion of the plaintiff's side evidence and despite the same, the trial Court erred in allowing the said application without appreciating the fact that no satisfactory explanation has been offered by defendant No.1 for the inordinate delay in filing the alleged Will deed. He further submitted that the trial Court failed to take note of the fact that in his written statement, defendant No.1 stated that Will deed is a registered one, however, he has filed a notarized Will deed along with the present application, which itself falsifies the case of defendant No.1 and hence, he prayed to allow the Revision.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/defendant No.1 submitted that on due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material placed on record, the trial Court has rightly allowed the application and no grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned order and prayed to dismiss the Revision.

8. Bare perusal of the record discloses that the case of defendant No.2 is that the suit schedule properties are the self- acquired properties of their father and that he has executed Will deed dated 08.02.2004, which was notarized on 18.07.2004. On the other hand, the plaintiff’s