Disposed

Edigi Dastaiah v. Edigi Buggaiah, And 7 Others

Telangana HC1 Jul 2022CRP/71/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of Civil Revision Petitions challenging orders allowing the recall of evidence and receipt of additional documents in a suit for perpetual injunction. The court held the trial court was right to admit the documents due to injunction nature but enhanced costs.

What did the court decide?

Common Civil Revision Petitions allowed; enhanced costs of Rs.1000/- each to District Legal Services Authority imposed.

Edigi Dastaiah Vs Edigi Buggaiah, And 7 Others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 71 OF 2020 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITtON No.78 OF 2020

¶6

CRP.No.71 of 2020

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order dated 14.11.2019 in lA No.341 of 2019 in OS No.76 of 2011 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Pargi, Rangareddy District.

¶8

CRP.No.78 of 2020

¶9

Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order daled 14.11.2019 in lA No.342 of 2019 in OS No.76 of 2011 on^{the file of the} Junior Civil Judge, Pargi, Rangareddy District.

¶10

COMMON C.T. lN CRP.Nos.71 & 78 of 2020

¶11

Between:

¶12

Edigi Dastaiah, S/o. Late Katamaiah, Aged about.40^years, Occ.^Agriculture Doma village and mandal Vikarabad district

¶13

...Petitioner/RespondenUPlaintiff

¶14

AND

¶15

Edigi Buggaiah, S/o. Kistaiah Aged about 58^years, Occ. Agriculture

¶16

Edigi Gopal, S/o Buggaiah Aged about 38^{years, Occ.Agriculture,}

¶17

Edigi Baskar, S/o Buggaiah Aged^{about35 years,Occ.Agriculture,}

¶18

Edigi Mogulaiah, S/o Buggaiah^{Aged about 32 years, Occ. Agriculture,}

¶19

Edigi Kumar, S/o Buggaiah^{Aged about30 years,Occ.Agriculture,}

¶20

Edigi Padmamma, Wio^{Buggaiah Aged about 55 years, Occ.Agriculture'}

¶21

Edigi Ramulu, S/o Kistaiah^{Aged about56 years Occ.Agriculture,}

¶22

B. Edigi Anusuja @ Laxmi, W/o Ramulu Aged about^{53 years, Occ. Agriculture} All R/o Doma Village and Mandal, Vikarabad District

¶23

...Respondents/Petitioners/Defendants

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VIJAY KUMAR^{HEROOR(poth CRP's)} Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2, 3,4, 6 &^{7: SRI L. PREETHAM REDDY}

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 5: NONE APPEARED

¶26

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CML REVISION PETITION No.71 oF 2o2o AND CML REVISION PETITION No.78 OF 2O2O

¶28

COMMON ORDER:-

¶29

Civil Revision Petition No.71 of 2O2O rs filed against the orders of the trial Court dated 14.ll.2Ol9 in LA.No.341 of 2Ol9 in O.S.No.76 of 2O11 for recall of DWl for marking additional documents as exhibits and the said petition was allowed on costs of Rs.5O/-.

¶30

Civil Revision Petition No.78 of 2O2O is hled against the orders of the trial Court dated 14.Ll.2019 in I.A.No.342 of 2Ol9 in O.S.No.76 of 2011 for receiving of the documents and it was also allowed on costs of Rs.50/-.

¶31

Aggrieved by the said orders, these Civil Revision Petitions are preferred. Petitioner herein mainly contended that he is the plaintiff and he filed 0.5.76 of 2O11 for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in Survey No.59/ 1, admeasuring 7.34 guntas, situated in Linganpally Village, Doma Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Defendants opposed the same. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A13 were marked. The defendants also examined DWs 1 to 4 and marked Exs.B 1 to 85. When the matter is

¶32

¶33

P55,J CRP.Nos.71and 78 of 2020

¶34

posted frrr further evidence if any, on OS.08.20 19, the respondents herein filed I.A.No.34l of 2Ol9 for recall of evidence of DWI and I.A.No.342 of 2079 for receiving documents viz., sale deed in respect of Survey No.59/3 and plha.ries for the years 1971 to 2Ol7-18. Though they opposed the same, the trial Court allowed the application on 14.1 1.2olg. As such, they filed these Civil Revision petitions.

¶35

Defendant No.l in the main suit filed an application before the trial Court stating that some of the important documents are mispiaced in the house and some documents are received recently from 'Mee Seva, and he intended to file the same. The list of the documents are as follows:_

¶36

.t Original copy of Registered sale deed vide Document No. 1 47 6 / 20 13, dated 26.04.2O 13.

¶37

b Certified Copies of Pahanies for the year 197172, 1975-76, 1984-85, 1985_86, 1989_gO, 1gg4_ 95, i99s-96, t997-98, 1999_2OOO(21, 2oo7-o8, 2009-10, 201r-12, 2012_13, 2013-14, 2014_ 1s(2).

¶38

C. Certified Copy of Fasli 1423 for the year 2Ol4-tS. d. Certified copy of Fasli (1422) for the year 2Ol3-L4. e. Certified copy of Fasli-2o17 for the year 2017-18, dated 16.03.2019.

¶39

Defendant No. 1 in the suit stated that he received the said documents recently from Tahsildar office, Doma and thus {iied

¶40

¶41

PS5,J CRP.Nos.71and 78 of 2O2O

¶42

two applications, one is to receive documents and another is to recall DW1 for marking of the same.

¶43

The trial Court observed that suit is at the stage of further evidence of defendant and the documents filed are necessary to adjudicate the matter. The defendant No.l stated that he obtained the same after filing of the suit and accordingly, the trial Court allowed both the applications on payment of costs. It is aiso observed that after marking of the additional documents, the respondents are having sufficient opportunitlr to further cross-examine DW 1, but aggrieved by the said order, they preferred CRP's. The counsel for the petitioner stated that the suit is filed in the year 2O I 1 and the sa-le deed is pertaining to the year 2O13 and some of the pahanies are pertaining to the period after liling of the suit. The respondents herein ought to have applied for the said documents immediately after liling of the suit. But they kept quiet till the completion of the defendants evidence and came up with this application at the fag end of the case. In the counter filed before the trial Court, he also stated that they intended to file these documents to nullify the cross-examination done on DW I . No doubt, the respondents herein filed the documents after completion of the evidence of DW1, but the said documents are the registered sale deed and certified copies of the pahanies. As the suit is hled for

¶44

¶45

PSS,I CRP No!.7r and 78 of 2020

¶46

injunction, the documents filed by the respondents are necessary for adjudication of the matter.

¶47

Considering the said aspect and moreover, the petitioner herein is having ample opportunity to cross-examine the witness as the documents are intended to mark through DWl, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner herein. The trial Court rightly allowed the applications, but imposed the costs of Rs.5O/-.

¶48

The rcspondents relied upon a citation reported in Rajah R.V.G.K.Ranga Rao and anther v. Nizams Sugars Limited, Latchayyapeta, Seetjamagaram Mandal, Vizianagara Districtl in which it was held that when valid reasons for not fi1ing the documents earlier are shown, the Court should ordinarily lean in favour of receiving the documents than in refusing the same.

¶49

Learned counsei for the pctitioner relied upon a citation of this Court reported in Voruganti Narayana Rao v. Bodla Rammurthy and others2 in which it was held that there is no specific plea by the respondents that the documents were misplaced. They have also not pleaded that despite their due

2OO4 (rl ArD 3a7

2Ot I 16l .\LD 142

P55,J CRP-No5.71 and 78of .2O2O

¶54

diligence, the documents could not be traced. They failed to \ furnish better reasons for receiving the documents at a belated stage.

¶55

Considering the facts that the documents are not liled along with the written statement and even at the time of evidence of defendant, this Court hnds it reasonable to allow the Civil Revision Petitions on costs of Rs.10OO/- each (Rupees one thousand onl9 to be paid to the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) of the concerned Court before proceeding with the matter.

¶56

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶57

SD/.G.SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

6D s\so1r-

SECTION OFFICER

I The Junior Civil Judge, Parigi, Ranga Reddy District. 2 One CC to Sri Vijay Kumar Heroor, Advocate [OPUC] J One CC to Sri L. Preetham Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies 5 One Spare Copy sbr

¶63

HIGH COURT

¶64

DATED: 0110712022

¶65

._ -. t,{
-'r1lNri
ra, 11 stl
I 1.1
,L/

¶66

COMMON ORDER

¶67

CRP.Nos.71 and 78 of 2020

¶68

ALLOWING THE BOTH CRP'S