IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2160 of 2022 DATED: 23.02.2026 Between:

Pinky Ray, W/o. Sanjeeth Kumar Sharma. … Petitioner AND

1. A. Narayana Prasad (Died)

2. Krupa Prasad, W/o. Late Attavar Narayan Prasad, Aged about 64 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o. H.No.54, 4th Floor, Krishna Kamala Enclave, Near S.B.I. Bank, B.B.M.P., Bengaluru, Karnataka. …Respondents :: O R D E R ::

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 16.08.2022 in I.A.No.1001 of 2022 in O.S.No.50 of 2017 on the file of the learned XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. The said interlocutory application was filed by the defendant i.e., revision petitioner herein under Section 128 of the Civil Rules of Practice read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking a direction to produce the original document i.e., the Agreement of Sale dated 18.12.2013, from the record in O.S.No.100 of 2016, for the purpose of confronting PW-1 before the learned Advocate Commissioner. Upon due enquiry, the said interlocutory application was dismissed by the trial Court.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.

3. Heard Mr. T.Ratan Singh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant and Mr. D.V.A.S. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/plaintiff No.2.

4. The brief facts as borne out from the record, are that the deceased plaintiff No.1 along with plaintiff No.2, filed a suit in O.S.No.50 of 2017 seeking recovery of possession and damages in respect of the suit schedule property against the defendant Nos.1 to 3 including the revision petitioner herein.

5. During the cross-examination of PW-1, before the learned Advocate Commissioner, PW-1 was confronted with a Photostat copy of the Agreement of Sale, and PW-1, who is plaintiff No.2 in the suit, admitted the signature of plaintiff No.1 on the said document. However, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs in the suit raised an objection regarding marking of the said document as an exhibit for want of production of the original.

6. It is the case of the defendant No.1 that she filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.100 of 2016 against the defendants, and the said original Agreement of Sale dated 18.12.2013 was filed in that suit and the said document is presently in the custody of the Court. Therefore, the learned counsel for the defendant contended that the said original Agreement of Sale dated 18.12.2013 could be summoned and produced for the purpose of confronting PW-1.

7. The plaintiff No.2 filed a counter, contending that it is open to the defendant to seek return of the document from the concerned Court and file the same in the present suit if he intends to rely upon it.

8. Having considered the relevant submissions made by the parties, the learned trial Court observed that the defendant could file a petition in O.S. No.100 of 2016 seeking return of the original Agreement of Sale dated 18.12.2013 and file the same in O.S.No.50 of 2017 pending before this Court. By so deciding, the learned trial Court dismissed I.A. No.1001 of 2022.

9. It is evident from the record, that no adverse order affecting the substantive rights of the defendant was passed by the learned trial Court while dismissing the application filed by the defendant under Section 128 of the Civil Rules of Practice. The trial Court merely indicated the appropriate procedural course to be adopted by the defendant for securing the original document.

10. Further, no prejudice is caused to the defendant, as he is at liberty to apply for the return of the original document, i.e., the Agreement of Sale dated 18.12.2013, from concerned Court and place it on record in the present suit in O.S.No.50 of 2017. However, the defendant did not make any such efforts before filing the application invoking Section 128 o