THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE P.SAM KOSHY CI VI L REVI SI ON PETI TI ON No.2468 of 2025

ORDER:

The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the docket order dated 28.02.2025, in I.A.No.1817 of 2024 in O.S.No.157 of 2014 (renumbered as O.S.No.47 of 2021), passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally (for short, ‘the impugned order’)

2. Heard Mr. P. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. Karra V.V.S.N.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Ms.

Challa Apoorva Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

3. Vide the impugned order; the Trial Court dismissed the I.A.No.1817 of 2024 filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking to reopen the petitioner’s evidence for further marking of certain documents.

4. The brief facts of the case, are that, the petitioner filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents. The contention of the petitioner was that the respondents are trying to interfere with the construction works initiated by the petitioner. The Trial Court initially granted an order of status quo on 04.03.2014 and it is still in operation. The petitioner got himself examined as PW.1 and closed his evidence and thereafter the matter was posted for evidence of the respondents. The evidence of the respondents also closed and the matter was coming up for final arguments. It is during this time that the present I.A.No.1817 of 2024 was filed by the petitioner seeking reopening of his evidence for marking certain documents.

5. The said I.A. was filed on 25.09.2024. The petitioner intended to mark three documents, viz., 1. certified copy of Encumbrance certificate. 2. certified copy of GPA doc No. 7969/2013.

3. Electricity bills.

It is this application which stood dismissed by the Trial Court leading to the filing of instant Civil Revision Petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that it is a petitioner / plaintiff’s suit for perpetual injunction and the pleadings are almost complete and it at this juncture that the petitioner could lay hand on the three documents which the petitioner intends to mark and inadvertently it could not be marked during the course of trial. He submits that no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the interest of the respondents. Moreover, it may only strengthen the case of the petitioner before the Trial Court and therefore the Trial Court ought not to have dismissed the said I.A.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further contended that the delay on the part of the petitioner in bringing those documents on record was on account of the petitioner laying hands on documents in the recent past and that the petitioner was not having these documents in his possession / custody, or else, the petitioner would had filed it earlier itself and had got it marked during the course of trial.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon the following decisions contended that the Supreme Court had permitted reopening of the evidence so as to mark the documents which the plaintiff intended to bring on record and mark the same.

a) K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy b) Levaku Pedda Reddamma & Ors. vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma & Anr.

c) Sugandhi (dead) by Lrs. & Anr. vs. P. Rajkumarrep by his Power Agent I mam Oli

1 (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 275

2 Civil Appeal No.4096 of 2022, decided on 17.05.2022

arising out of SLP (C) No.7452 of 2022

3 Civil Appeal No.3427 of 2020, decided on 13.10.2020

arising out of SLP (C) No.16491 of 2020

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 contended that the present I.A. has been filed only with a mala fide intention of protracting the proceedings before the Trial Court and in the process the petitioner can continue to enjoy the order of status quo that was granted way back in the year 2014.

10. According to the learned counsel for respon