IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2359 of 2025

17^th DAY OF MARCH, 2026 Between:

Dr. Basa Rajeshwar Rao.

…Petitioner AND Basa Jagadishwar Rao and three others.

...Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Suryanarayana, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the entire record.

2. The Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner/respondent No.1/defendant No.1 aggrieved by the order dated 23.04.2025 passed in I.A.No.26 of 2025 in O.S.No.9 of 2019 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Jagtial, (‘trial Court’), wherein a petition filed by respondent No.1 herein/petitioner/plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 of CPC, to receive additional documents has been allowed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff filed suit for partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule property against the petitioner herein and respondent Nos.2 and 3. Thereafter, an interlocutory application was filed for impleading respondent No.4 herein as defendant No.4 and the same was allowed. At the time of filing the implead petition, the petitioner failed to produce four documents consisting of doctor's certificate dated 25.01.2025, photocopy of application of respondent No.2 dated 19.02.2018, photocopy of objection letter of respondent No.2 dated 20.12.2017 given to the then Municipal Commissioner and photocopy of letter issued by Municipal Council dated 10.01.2025. The said documents are sought to be received to be marked on behalf of respondent No.1 herein.

4. The petitioner herein opposed the interlocutory application, narrating the sequence of events that have taken place, which includes filing of interlocutory applications by respondent No.1 one after another. With respect to the four documents that are sought to be received, the petitioner contends that photocopies of documents cannot be received. Further, the certificate issued by doctor dated 25.01.2025 is a rank created document pertaining to one Basa Bhoomaiah, who died on 27.03.1996. The certificate was issued by the doctor by name Sharad Jadav Bhiwandi, without any supporting medical record. The said Basa Bhoomaiah died 29 years ago and a medical certificate is issued without examining said dead person and the document sought to be received cannot be examined without examining the author. The petitioner has lodged a complaint against Dr.Sharad Bhiwandi and the same is pending. The petitioner pleaded that the said Basa Bhoomaiah was not suffering with dementia and if such was the case it would have been known to the petitioner as well as the other respondents. Reference is made to the order of Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A. and the contents of Ex.R-1 to R-6, which show possession of respondent No.1. It is contended that permitting the documents to be received shall result in prejudice to the petitioner as such opposed with the same.

5. The learned trial Court allowed the petition, notwithstanding the objections raised by the petitioner, on the premise that the admissibility and relevancy of the documents cannot be considered at this stage, in order to give fair opportunity to respondent No.1 herein to put forth his case, the petition was allowed. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred.

6. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that of the four documents that are sought to be received, two of them are photocopies and two documents came into existence after filing of the suit. Further, photocopies of documents cannot be received in evidence. Though, the written statement is filed in the month of June, 2009 itself, the trial Court is not insisting respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff to lead evidence. No reasons are given as to why the grounds raised by the petitioner are not accepted. Hence, prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

7