IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA C.R.P.NO.612 OF 2026 DATE:26.02.2026 Between:

Pallati Yadaiah and 3 others.

...Petitioners AND Pallati Jangaiah and 3 others.

...Respondents Mr. Shashank Garige, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

Mr. Ravi Chandra Bejjaram, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

ORDER:

1. The Civil Revision Petition (CRP) arises out of order dated

31.12.2025 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing I.A.No.876 of 2025 in O.S.No.79 of 2021 (Old O.S.No.172 of 2017),which was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs seeking permission to reopen the evidence of PW1 for marking of certain documents on their behalf. The said I.A. was filed under Section 151 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘C.P.C.’).

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs and the respondents/defendants.

3. The relevant part of the impugned order gives several reasons for dismissing the petitioners’ I.A. It was observed therein that the documents which the petitioners/plaintiffs sought permission to bring on record and mark as evidence, had been mentioned for the first time in 2025 i.e., after the efflux of nearly 8 years from the institution of the Suit in 2017 (re-numbered in 2021). It was also noted that the petitioners’ I.A. came to be filed when the matter was posted for arguments after the evidence of both sides had been closed. The Trial Court further recorded that the plaint did not mention any of the documents and that in the absence of pleadings, such documents cannot be brought on record. The Trial Court was also of the view that the plaintiff had filed the said I.A only to prolong the hearing of the matter.

4. The Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The judgment in Bada Bodaiah v. Bada Linga Swamy, 2002 SCC Online AP 992, was relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Paragraph No.12 thereof makes it clear that for receiving documents at a subsequent stage of hearing of the Suit under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of the C.P.C., the Court must exercise its discretion, having regard to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, the impugned order makes it clear that the Trial

Court exercised its discretion and rejected the petitioners’ I.A. on sound reasons.

5. C.R.P.No.612 of 2026, along with all connected applications, is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J DATE : 26.02.2026 PRAT/TMK