IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.20, 21 and 28 of 2025

16^th DAY OF MARCH, 2026 C.R.P.No.20 of 2025:

Between:

S. Nandu @ Nandeshwar.

…Petitioner AND S. Venkateshwar.

...Respondent C.R.P.No.21 of 2025:

Between:

S. Nandu @ Nandeshwar.

…Petitioner AND S. Venkateshwar.

...Respondent C.R.P.No.28 of 2025:

Between:

S. Nandu @ Nandeshwar.

…Petitioner AND S. Venkateshwar.

...Respondent

COMMON ORDER:

Heard Sri A. Laxman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.

Sridhar, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire record.

2. The present Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, aggrieved by the common order dated 06.11.2024 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri at Kukatpally, (‘trial Court’) in I.A.Nos.795, 796 and 797 of 2023 in O.S.No.538 of 2021, wherein petitions under Section 151 of CPC, under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC and under Order VII Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 of CPC respectively filed to reopen, recall and to receive documents consisting of certified copy of judgment and decree along with written statement in O.S.No.140 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, were dismissed.

3. The background facts of the case are that the petitioner filed suit for recovery of possession and damages with respect to property consisting of Eastern portion of premises bearing No.6-1-117 (old No.1-117), having plinth area of 600 square yards with four rooms in the first floor situated at Balanagar, Ranga Reddy District, Kukatpally Municipality. The respondent/defendant denied the execution of registered gift deed bearing document No.256 of 1995, dated 12.01.1995 by his father Late Sambhaji Rao. Further, previously the respondent's brothers have filed suit for partition and separate possession. With respect to the same property in O.S.No.140 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The respondent herein was defendant No.4 in said suit. The respondent is aware about the gift deed executed in favour of the petitioner, but for reasons best known, denied execution of the same by his father. The petitioner obtained certified copy of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.140 of 1995 together with written statement and filed the interlocutory applications under revision.

4. The respondent opposed the petitions, alleging that the petitioner had knowledge about the documents ever since filing of the suit in the year 2015 (Old O.S.No.1602 of 2015), but had not filed the document at the time of filing of the suit. Further, the gift deed is challenged by the respondent as a forged and fabricated document. The cross-examination of the petitioner was closed on 12.07.2018 after reporting no further evidence. Thereafter, the evidence of the respondent has also been completed and at that stage, the petitions were filed to reopen, recall and receive additional documents.

5. The learned trial Court considered the case of the petitioner and had concluded that the power under Section 151 or Order XVIII Rule 17 cannot be invoked as a matter of routine. When there is an application filed bona fide and where the additional evidence will assist the Court to clarify the real issues between the parties and in rendering justice, said discretion may be exercised. However, while exercising such discretion, the Courts have to ensure that the same does not become a protracting tactic. It is held that the petitioner came up with the impugned interlocutory applications when the matter stood posted for arguments. Further, in the plaint there are no pleadings with regard to the suit in O.S.No.140 of 1995 and only at the time of filing of chief examination there is a reference to the suit in O.S.No.140 of 1995. Even at that time, the petitioner did not choose to produce the documents related to O.S.No.140 of 1995. In spite of the fact th