IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PET ITI ON No.171 OF 2026 Date:13-03-2026 Between Smt. A.Varalakshmi Parvathi …Petitioner and The Bhabha Nagar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Represented By its President Sri Botla Sailoo ….Respondent T his Court passed the following

ORDER

Heard Sri P. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Sai Sri Harsha, learned counsel appearing for respondent.

2.The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 27.11.2025 passed in I.A.No.2222 of 2025 in O.S.No.823 of 2022 (Old O.S.No.2211 of 2018) by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda.

3. The respondent – Society is the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit.

It has filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioner herein – defendant for cancellation of sale deed and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property.

4. During pendency of the said suit, respondent – plaintiff has filed a petition vide I.A.No.2222 of 2025 under order VII Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 of CPC, to receive the judgment in CTA No.22 of 2017 dated 01.07.2024 passed by the learned Cooperative Tribunal at Hyderabad, contending that at the time of filing of the suit, he has not filed the said document, the same is obtained recently and it is relevant and crucial for adjudication of the present suit.

5. The respondent Nos.1 and 3 in CTA No.22 of 2017 i.e. The District Cooperative Officer, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Keesara and Senior Inspector/Official Administrator of DCO office did not produce the documents intentionally. Therefore, the learned Cooperative Tribunal allowed the said appeal by setting aside the impugned order therein. The said aspects were not considered by the trial Court in the impugned order. Therefore, he sought to set aside the impugned order.

6. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that while receiving the document, Court will only consider as to whether it is relevant to the present case or not and other aspects can be considered at the time of hearing the suit itself.

7. In the light of the above submissions, it is apt to note that Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC deals with production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies:

(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.

8. According to the respondent - plaintiff, the said judgment dated 01.07.2024 in CTA No.22 of 2017 passed by the learned Cooperative Tribunal, is relevant to the present case. The appellant therein i.e. Sri Botla Sailu, is the President of the respondent - society. He is representing the Society in the present suit. The respondent herein – society is 2^nd respondent in CTA No.22 of 2017. .

9. As discussed supra, said Botla Sailu filed the aforesaid application only to receive a copy of judgment dated 01.07.2024 in CTA No.22 of 2017. While receiving the said document, learned trial Court has to see whether the same is relevant or not. With regard to authenticity and other aspects can be considered at the time of hearing the suit. . On consideration of the said aspects only, learned trial Court allowed the said application to receive the said document. There is no error in the impugned order.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in K.D.Sharma vs. Steel Authorities of India Ltd.¹ would submit that the judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court, Tribunal or Authority is a nullity. 11. As discussed supra, whether the impugned judgment in CTA No.22 of 2017 is obtained by playing fraud or not, is for the trial Court to consider. If the tria