O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the Order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.No.298 of 2015.

Heard Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri R.A.Achuthanand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 & 2; Sri Venkatram Reddy Mantur, learned counsel for the respondent No.3; Sri Veduala Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms.Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 . Perused the entire material on record.

For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

The brief facts of the case are that the Revision Petitioner is defendant No.2 in O.S.No.298 of 2015 on the file of the X Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff against the revision petitioner and other family members seeking partition of the suit schedule properties. In the said suit evidence was closed and the matter was heard and posted for judgment to 24.06.2019, since the Presiding Officer was transferred the suit was reopened. In the meanwhile the father of the revision petitioner, plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 to 6, who was defendant No.1 in the above suit expired. Thereafter the plaintiff and defendant No.4 sought amendment on the premise that their father executed certain documents in their favour and after amendments petition was allowed and after additional pleadings by the parties to the suit.

Additional issues were framed and thereafter the respondent who is the plaintiff in the suit filed Addl. Chief Affidavit and the matter came up for cross examination, since it is the specific plea of the petitioner herein (Defendant No.2) in the suit that plaintiff and defendant No.4 are sailing together, the trial court was pleased to direct defendant No.4 to cross examine PW.1. While so, during cross-examination of PW.1 by counsel for defendant No.4, on 27-12-2021. The counsel for defendant No.4 sought to confront Release Deed purported to have been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.4 and a paper publication allegedly given by defendant No.1 and the same was objected to by petitioners counsel as they are irrelevant documents and cannot be marked and requested the court to decide on the admissibility of document.

Therefore trial court heard both the counsels and passed docket orders dated 22.11.2021. Admittedly, plaintiff herein has entered into the witness box and was examined as PW-1. And the docket order dated 22.11.2021 which is passed by the learned trial court order dated, which is extracted below:

“17.11.2021: PW1, the counsel for D2 appeared, D2 appeared, D3 and D4 also appeared. For consideration of the admisibility of the documents sought to be confronted to PW1 by defendant No.4 call on 22-11-2021.

22.11.2021: PW1, Defendant No.2, Defendant No.3 and Defendant No.4 appeared. The documents i.e., Release Deed and Relinquishment Deed executed by the defendant No.1 are permitted to be confronted to PW1 but publication given in news paper is refused to be confronted to PW1. For cross examination of PW1 by defendant No.4 at request call on 08.12.2021.”

Being aggrieved by the impugned docket orders dated 17.11.2021 and 22.11.2021, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed on the ground that permitting the Release Deed and Relinquishment Deed executed by Defendant No.1 to be confronted to PW.1 is contrary to law. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that PW.1 is not a party to the said documents and, therefore, the same cannot be confronted to the witness. The learned trial Court also failed to appreciate the settled position of law that a document can be confronted to a witness during cross-examination only to (i) contradict him or (ii) refresh the memory of the witness. Lastly, the learned trial Court failed to assign any reasons for permitting t