1. Petition to receive photocopy of sale deed as secondary evidence in suit for specific performance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 13029
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Renuka Yara, J
Bhukya Bicha – Appellant
Versus
Geggelapally Chandra Shekar Reddy – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.180 of 2024
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kunak Kakkad, B. Mohan
For the Respondents: K. Jagadishwar Reddy
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kunak Kakkad, B. Mohan
For the Respondents: K. Jagadishwar Reddy
Important Points
A document cannot be admitted as additional evidence under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the CPC if there are no corresponding pleadings in the plaint, as pleadings are intended to define issues and prevent litigants from shifting grounds during the trial.
Subject
Civil Law - Procedural Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Civil Procedure - Production of Documents - Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC - Absence of Pleadings - Where the plaint contains no mention or pleadings regarding a specific document (e.g., an unregistered sale deed), such document cannot be received as additional evidence at a belated stage, as pleadings are essential to prevent the shifting of grounds during trial. (Para 8, 19, 20)
(B) Res Judicata - Interlocutory Applications - Dismissal as 'not pressed' - A petition dismissed as 'not pressed' without an adjudication on merits does not operate as res judicata for a subsequent application for the same relief. (Para 16)
Issues: Whether a document can be received as secondary evidence under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC in the absence of corresponding pleadings in the plaint.
(B) Res Judicata - Interlocutory Applications - Dismissal as 'not pressed' - A petition dismissed as 'not pressed' without an adjudication on merits does not operate as res judicata for a subsequent application for the same relief. (Para 16)
Issues: Whether a document can be received as secondary evidence under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC in the absence of corresponding pleadings in the plaint.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued res judicata from prior dismissed application and lack of pleadings; respondent countered no merit dismissal and no prejudice. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
3. Absence of pleadings about the unregistered sale deed in plaint and legal notice is fatal; trial court's exercise of power was inappropriate. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
4. Document cannot be received as additional evidence under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC if there are no pleadings to support its marking. (Para 19 , 20 )
5. Civil Revision Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; application to receive documents as secondary evidence dismissed. (Para 21 )
6. Does dismissal of an application as not pressed operate as res judicata for a subsequent application?
No, dismissal as not pressed does not operate as res judicata because the matter was not decided on its merits. (Para 16 )
7. Can a document be received as additional evidence under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC without supporting pleadings?
No, a document cannot be received as additional evidence under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC if there are no pleadings in the plaint to support its marking. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 )
8. What is the requirement of pleadings under Order VII Rule 14 CPC for receiving documents?
The object of pleadings is to define issues and prevent surprise at trial; documents must be supported by pleadings to be received as additional evidence. (Para 8 , 9 , 18 )
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.180 of 2024
06th 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.
RY, J CRP_180_2024
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
2
RY, J CRP_180_2024
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.
3
RY, J CRP_180_2024
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 unregistered sale
