Procedural rules are handmaids of justice; courts may permit the reopening of evidence or reception of additional documents at a belated stage if necessary for the effective adjudication of the real controversy, provided no irreparable prejudice is caused to the opposite party.

ORDER:

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioners/defendants challenging the common orders dated 24.11.2025 passed in I.A. Nos. 474, 475 and 476 of 2025 in O.S. No. 77 of 2016 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad.

2. Since the issues involved in these revision petitions arise out of the same suit between the same parties and are interconnected, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. Heard Mr. K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants, and Mr. P. Rajgopal Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs.

4. C.R.P. No. 4666 of 2025 is directed against the order in I.A. No. 474 of 2025 seeking reopening of the plaintiffs’ evidence. C.R.P. No. 4677 of 2025 challenges the order in I.A. No. 476 of 2025 filed to receive certain documents. C.R.P. No. 4653 of 2025 assails the order in I.A. No. 475 of 2025 seeking recall of PW.1 for further examination.

5. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that, the O.S. No. 77 of 2016 was instituted by the plaintiffs seeking declaration of title over the suit schedule property and consequential perpetual injunction against the defendants. At the stage when the suit was posted for arguments, the plaintiffs filed the aforesaid interlocutory applications seeking (i) reopening of evidence, (ii) recall of PW.1, and (iii) reception of additional documents, i.e., the charge sheet in C.C. No. 817 of 2015 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad, and the deposition of the mother of the petitioner recorded therein. The trial Court, upon consideration, dismissed the applications observing that they were filed at a belated stage without satisfactory explanation and that the documents sought to be introduced could have been filed at the appropriate stage during trial.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the documents sought to be produced are relevant to the adjudication of the issues in the suit, particularly in view of the specific reference to the suit schedule property in the criminal proceedings. It is contended that the question of proof and evidentiary value of such documents would arise only at the stage of appreciation of evidence and not at the stage of their reception. It is further submitted that, as the matter is still at the stage prior to final adjudication, the plaintiffs ought to be afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to place all relevant material before the Court in order to substantiate their case. Hence, interference of this Court is sought.

7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that the trial Court rightly exercised its discretion in rejecting the applications, particularly in the absence of a proper explanation for the delay. It is further contended that the petitioners were not parties to the criminal proceedings and that findings in criminal cases are not binding on civil courts. It is also argued that the proposed documents cannot be proved through PW.1 and that the exercise sought would only delay the proceedings. Accordingly, dismissal of the revision petitions is prayed for.

8. I have perused the material available on record.

9. The petitioners seek to place on record documents arising out of criminal proceedings allegedly pertaining to the same subject matter and to recall PW.1 for further examination in that regard. It is undisputed that the appli