IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3865, 3882 & 4117 of 2025 DATE: 02.04.2026 Between:

Syed Muqeem, S/o. Syed Ifteqar.

…Petitioner AND G.S.Susheel Kumar (Died) Per LR.s and 4 others.

…Respondents

COMMON ORDER:

Heard Mr. Mohammed Adam, learned counsel for the petitioner;

and V.Jagapathi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. Since the issue involved in the instant Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same and the parties also being the same, they are taken up together and decided by this Common Order.

3. The petitioner herein is defendant No.3; respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the plaintiffs, and respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the defendant Nos.1 and 2 before the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, they will hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

4. Civil Revision Petition No.3865 of 2025 is filed assailing the order dated 17.03.2025, in I.A.No.2012 of 2025 in O.S.No.231 of 2015, passed by the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court allowed the I.A.No.2012 of 2024 preferred by the plaintiffs under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC seeking for recalling of PW.1 for the purpose of marking of the documents.

5. Civil Revision Petition Nos.3882 & 4117 of 2025 are filed challenging the order dated 17.03.2025, in I.A.No.2031 of 2024 & I.A.No.2030 of 2024 in O.S.No.231 of 2015, passed by the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. Vide the impugned common order, the Trial Court allowed the aforesaid two I.As.; one filed for receiving certified copy of the two driving licenses dated 27.06.2002 and 01.09.2005 and another filed to receive the certified copies of the plaint as also the written statement filed by the parties in O.S.No.438 of 2015.

6. So far as I.A.No.2012 of 2024 is concerned, the contention of the plaintiffs was that they have filed a suit for declaration, recovery of possession and consequential injunction against the defendants. The suit is one which was filed in the year 2015, and after the evidence of PW.1 was recorded the plaintiffs obtained certain certified copies of the two driving licenses; one issued by the RTA, Hyderabad Central Zone, dated 27.06.2002 and another issued by the RTA North Zone, dated 01.09.2005, which according to the plaintiffs was earlier filed but somehow the same got misplaced from the records, and it was for this reason that a fresh certified copy is filed and for marking the same recalling PW.1 would be necessary.

7. The defendants filed a counter denying the request for recalling of PW.1 and marking of the said document on the ground that defendant No.1 is said to have impersonated himself as plaintiff No.1 and have got the sale deed dated 22.10.2013 executed in favour of defendant No.2. That being the contention, since the alleged sale deed dated 22.10.2013 is not under challenge and the same not being the subject matter of the suit and may have no binding effect on this suit, recalling PW.1 insofar as marking of these documents is not of much relevance.

8. So far as I.A.No.2030 of 2024 is concerned, the contention of the plaintiffs was that initially they have filed certain certified copies of the driving licenses but the certified copies were found to be missing at the time of marking, which according to the plaintiffs appears to be a deliberate act by some vested party to the proceedings and it was in the said circumstances that fresh certified copies were obtained and was being sought to be brought on record.

9. According to the plaintiffs, in order to prove their case based upon the nature of contentions and allegations made in the plaint, the said documents become very much necessary to be brought on record and be marked as exhibit or else the plaintiffs would be put to irreparable damage and loss.

10. So far as I.A.No.2031 of 2024 is concerned, the contention of the plaintiffs is that the doc