IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.180 of 2024

06^th DAY OF APRIL, 2026 Between:

Bhukya Bicha.

…Petitioner AND Geggelapally Chandra Shekar Reddy and 3 others.

...Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Sri Kunak Kakkad, learned counsel representing Sri B.

Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the entire record.

2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner/respondent No.1/defendant No.1 aggrieved by the order and decree dated 12.12.2023 in I.A.No.510 of 2023 in O.S.No.129 of 2014 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Yadadri Bhongir District, (‘trial Court’), wherein a petition filed under Order VII Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 of CPC and Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to receive certain documents as secondary evidence has been allowed in favour of the respondent No.1 herein/petitioner/plaintiff in a suit for specific performance.

Brief facts of the case:

3. Respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.510 of 2023 to receive photocopy of sale deed dated 26.07.2010 as secondary evidence in a suit filed by him seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 13.11.2006 vide O.S.No.129 of 2014 on the file of the learned trial Court. Respondent No.1 pleaded that he got prepared sale deed for execution by the revision petitioner on the basis of agreement of sale dated 13.11.2006. The said sale deed was prepared on 26.07.2010 on Rs.100/- non-judicial stamp paper dated 26.07.2010. The revision petitioner was expected to appear before the Sub-Registrar, Bibinagar, for registration of the sale deed. However, before the sale deed was presented for registration, the revision petitioner raised objection with regard to quantum of sale consideration. Therefore, the sale deed could not be presented before the Sub-Registrar Office, Bibinagar. In the said process, the original was misplaced by respondent No.1 and a photocopy of the same was traced and therefore, presented along with an interlocutory application to be received for being marked as secondary evidence by way of I.A. under revision.

4. The revision petitioner opposed the petition filed to receive documents primarily on two grounds. The first is that respondent No.1 had filed a similar petition in I.A.No.447 of 2023 before the trial Court and the same was dismissed as not pressed on 15.11.2023. By suppressing the said fact, the current interlocutory application under revision was filed and therefore, it is pleaded that the subsequent interlocutory application is not maintainable under law. The second ground cited for opposing the receipt of document is that the reason cited for non-filing of the document i.e. misplacement of the document in house of respondent No.1. According to the petitioner, the document sought to be presented before the Court is a fabricated and created document, where there is discrepancy in the signature as per plaint and the photocopy of sale deed.

5. Upon considering the version of both the respective parties, the learned trial Court held that the earlier petition was not disposed of on merits and therefore, does not operate as res judicata. Further, the reason cited for delay in presenting the document is also considered favourably on behalf of respondent No.1 as the document is crucial for proving the suit claim. It is held that even though the documents are marked, the revision petitioner would get an opportunity for cross-examination and therefore, no prejudice would be caused as such the petition was allowed. Aggrieved by said order and decree, the present revision is preferred.

Grounds of revision:

6. In grounds of revision, the revision petitioner reiterated the ground of res judicata about a similar petition being filed by way of I.A.No.447 of 2023 and its dismissal, as being not pressed. Further, the revision petitioner pleaded that there is no reference to the unregi