I N THE HI GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO DATE: 17.03.2026 CI VI L REVI SI ON PETI TI ON No.3406 OF 2025 Between:

Veldandi Swamy …Petitioner/ Plaintiff AND Kunchala Sudershan …Respondent/ Defendant

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 13.06.2025 passed in I.A.No.194 of 2025 in O.S.No.107 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.402 of 2015) on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Warangal at Hanumakonda.

2. Heard Mr. P. Shashi Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Dr. J. Vijayalaxmi, learned counsel for the respondent.

Perused the material available on record.

3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.107 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.402 of 2015). During the course of trial, the petitioner filed I.A.No.194 of 2025 under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to recall PW.1 for the purpose of marking certain documents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court committed an error in dismissing the said application, as the documents sought to be marked were already referred to in the plaint and included in the list of documents filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that even an unregistered document can be marked subject to payment of sufficient stamp duty and penalty, therefore, recalling PW.1 would facilitate proper adjudication of the matter. Learned counsel further submits that mere non-mentioning of detailed particulars of the documents is not fatal to the case of petitioner/plaintiff and that the said I.A.No.194 of 2025 ought to have been allowed in the interest of justice.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order and submits that the petitioner failed to furnish necessary descriptive particulars of the documents sought to be marked and also failed to assign any valid reason for not marking those documents at the appropriate stage. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner did not make out any sufficient cause for recalling PW.1 and therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application. He prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

6. A perusal of the record goes to show that the trial Court, vide order dated 13.06.2025, while dismissing the I.A.No.194 of 2025, observed that the petitioner had not mentioned the descriptive particulars of the documents, which are sought to be marked and had failed to explain any valid reason for not marking those documents earlier. The trial Court further observed that the petitioner failed to satisfy the Court that there existed sufficient cause to recall PW.1 for marking documents and consequently held that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought.

7. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner has not furnished adequate particulars regarding the documents which are sought to be marked and has also not assigned any valid or convincing reasons for not marking the said documents earlier. In the absence of such particulars and sufficient cause, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court was justified in dismissing the application. This Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court warranting interference.

8. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that non-disclosing of the particulars of the document is the reason for dismissal of I.A.No.194 of 2025, hence, he seeks liberty to file a fresh I.A., before the trial Court with all particulars of the documents.

9. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order dated 13.06.2025 passed in I.A.No.194 of 2025 is set aside. However, in the interest of justice, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application before the