Dismissed

M.Narasimha Reddy v. Smt. P.Balamani @ Vimalamma

Telangana HC15 Jul 2025CRP/1041/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendants in a partition suit sought to mark an agreement of 1985 at a late stage claiming misplacement. The High Court held the document was on record and earlier refused on objection, so re-reception was barred by estoppel; leave under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) requires sufficient cause.

What the court decided

AI extract

M.Narasimha Reddy Vs Smt. P.Balamani @ Vimalamma — Partition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

i { II it I I I i I I iI I I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1041 OF 2024

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to set-aside the order dated 27 tO2t2O24 passed in 1.A.No.21912024 in O.S.No.125i2022 on the file of the Hon'bte ll Addt District and Session s Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Medchal by allowing the present revision petition.

¶8

Between

¶9

M Narasimha Reddy, Sio. Late. Anji Reddy, Aged 60 years, Occ. Agricutture, R/o Lalgadi Malakpet Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy Diitrict

¶10

M Balvanth Rgddy, S/o Late. Bhupal Reddy, Aged 40 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Lalgadi lvlalakpet Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶11

M.Hanumanth Reddy, S/o. Late. Bhupal Reddy, Aged 36 years, Occ. Agriculture,^{R/o. Lalgadi Malakpet Village, Shameerpet Mandal,RangaReddy} District

¶12

Smt. M.Shamala, Wo. Late. Bhupal Reddy, Aged 60 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Lalgadi Malakpet Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy Diskict

¶13

Petitioners/Defendants No.2 to 5

¶14

AND

¶15

1 Smt. P.Balamani @ Vimalamma, Wo. Ulla Redd, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Housewife, Rio. Uddamarri Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy Diskict

¶16

2 M.Veerabhadra Reddy, S/o. Late. Anji Reddy, Aged about 70 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Lalgadi Malakpet Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶17

J Smt. Shamala, W/o. Late. Venkat Reddy, Aged about 48 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. Jagadepur Village and Mandal, Medak District

¶18

4 Smt. Sudha, Wo. Buchi Reddy, Aged about 41 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Kolur Village, BHEL, Medak Diskict

¶19

5 Smt. Pushpa, Wo. Venkat Reddy, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Ramanthapur, Hyderabad

¶20

Y.Ravinder Reddy, S/o. Shivaram Reddy,^{Aged atrout} 46^years,Occ. Advocate, R/o. Uddamarri Village, Shameerpet Mandal,^{Ranga ReddyDistrict}

¶21

Y. Srinivas Reody, Sio. Shivaram Reddy, Aged al:c'ut 37^{years, Occ.} Business, R/o Uddamarri Village, Shameerpet lVandal, Ranga Reddy^District

¶22

K Susheela, Wo. Raghupathi Reddy, Aged about 60^yr:errs, Occ^Housewife, R/o. Gadadepur Village and Mandal, Medak District

¶23

DrM. Sharat Chandra Reddy, S/o. Late. M. Ram Ri:cdy, Aged about 49 years, Occ. Medical Practitioner, R/o. Flat No.301, Ma'uthi Enclave, ftrlaruthi Nagar. Hyderabad

¶24

. Rer;p ond ents/Defendants

¶25

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶26

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the lifcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to stay all further^proceedings in O.S.No.125l 2022 on the file of the Honourable^Il Addl. District and Session's Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri Dislrict, at^{IMedchal until} disposal of the main Revision^petition and to^pass such othe- order or^ordersas this Honourable Court may deem fit and^proper in the in.erest of Justice and pass

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner(s). SRl. Ranga Rao Nellutla

¶28

Counsel for the Respondents: Nalla Mukunda Reddy

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{T. VINODKUMAR}

¶31

CTVIL REVISION PETITION^{No. l04l of 2024}

¶32

OR-DER

¶33

'l-he present Civil Revision Petition is prel'ened againsl the order dated 27.02.2024^{in I.A.No.2l9 of 2024 in O.S. No.125 of} 2022 passetl by the II^{AdditionalDistrict &Session'sJudge,} Medchal-Malkaj^giri District at^Medchal.

¶34

The revision petitioner herein^{is the defendant No.2 to 5 in} the suit filed for^{partitionand separate possession. The respondcnt} No. I hcrein is^{plaintillin the suit.}

¶35

3.^'fhe suit was originally^{instituted in the year2008.At the stagc} of lurther evidence of^{the petitioners/defendant No.2 to 5, the} petitioners have {iled an underlying^{applicationvide I A No 2l9} of 2024 in O.S. No.^{125 of 2022 seeking to receive the documents} as per list on record^{while condoningdelay,under OrderVlll Rule} 1-A(3) ofthe Code ofCivil^{Procedure,1908 (forshort 'CPC').}

¶36

The triat Court dismissed^{the underlyinginterlocutory} application, holding that since^{the questioneddocument ie'} agreement daled 02.12.1985^{was already availablein the record,}

¶37

¶38

thus. thc question of misplacing and tracing out is found to bc Itrlsc: that allcqed document bcing an agreemert nceds to bc exhibited in a suit for specitic perlbrmanoe but canrot bc received as cvidence in a suit lor partition

¶39

T'hc trial Court held that thc alleged docurrerlt cannot be rcccivcd as it is hit by Ser:tion 17 and 49 of lndirn Rcgistration Acti that the petitioncrs cannot tender the alleged documcnt for the second time lirr filing when it was onoe rejeoted to be received on objection, r.r'ithout challenging the rejcction at re cvant point of I ne

¶40

6.^'l he trial Clourl. also held that the alleged docurncnt cannot be received as the pctitioners' affidavit was found to b(l not verified and thc same is in contrary to Order XIX Rule 3 Cl^r(l; and that as the allcged document is conveying rights in favor clother par5, it cannot bc considered in a suit for partition betrvectr the parties to thc suit. Accordingly, the Court below held that the srid document sought to be received cannot be accepted as evidenct:

¶41

¶42

! i I I I I l I I I I : 1

¶43

Aggrieved^{by the above said order dated 27 022024 the} petitioners^{hereinhave prel-ened the presentCivilRevision} Pctition.

¶44

Fleard learned^{counscl for the petitioner and leamedcounsellor} thc respondents^{and perused the record'}

¶45

Thc^{petitioner contend that the impugned orderis contrary to} laiv and^{the trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdictionunder} Ordcr VIII^{Rule 1-A(3) CPC by not receiving the said document in} thc subjcct^{suit, despitc it being relevantandnecessaryevidencc to} the main^{petition; hencc. the saidtlocument sought to be received is} essential for^{the effective adjudicationof the mainsuit: and that the} trial Court^{crredin misapplying settled legal principles regarding} rcceiving^{of documents'}

¶46

Per contra,^{the respondent/ptaintiff herein contend that the said} document^{cannot be received as the document is forged and} fabricated;^{and that the said documentis inadmissible as the} rccitals of^{the document speaksabouttransfer ofrights'Further' the} respondent^{No.9/defendantNo 12 herein contendthatthe present} petition is filed^{without assigningreasonsand by not complying}

¶47

! ! Ii ! I i it !

¶48

¶49

the marrdator-v^{provisions underC)rder XIX I{ule 3 llPCl at theend} of the^{caseattcr closingthe plaintitfcvidcnoewithan intcntionto} cause^{prejudiceto the advcrsarJ'party 'lhus' the application filcd} lacks borut Jide.s^{ancl is liable to bc dismissed'}

¶50

I have^{takennol-e of the respcctive contentionsrrrglcd'}

¶51

In the^{present casethat though the petitioner-s aroprayed lor} rcceiving the^{said documentin o'idence, it is to be noted that the} since thc said^{docurnent is vcq' much available se:l' ing to reoeive} the docurnent.^{claiming thc sameas havingmisplat:cdand traced} out is fbtrnd^{to he not truc.'fhus- the petitioners herein cantrot scek} to receive thc^{clocuments as evidence tbr turther adiudication of the} matter

¶52

13.It is^{pertincnt1c.l note thal sub rule (l) of Rute l'lL of Order VIII} casts a dut-v^{on the def'endantto produce the documentson the} basis of^{whichhe plaocs reliancc at the time of lllingthe written} statement. Sub-rule^{(2) thcreofstatesthat in case iln]' documenton} which rclianco^{is placedis not in the possession cr power of the} defendant.^{he shall specify where such documentli:s Sub-rule(3)} provides that in a situation^{where the defendantsrrcks to producea}

¶53

¶54

¶55

document^{r,vhich ought to havc bccrrtiled at thc time of filing} wriften statement. the^{sameshall not be allowcd to be rcceivcdin} evidcnce u'ithout the^{lcavc of thc ('ourt.}

¶56

This Court in^PollePati Nursaiah and Ors.^{Vs. P.} Safi,anarayana and^{Orst dcali} n!1 with an application^{filed to} receive clocuments^{at a latcr stagc.held that the leave to file} documents undcr^{Order VII l{ulcI -A(3) CPC can onlybe grantcd} on furnishing^{sutficientcausc} .iustil'r'ing^{the lailure of the delendant} to llle the said^{documcnts along u'ith thc rvrittenstatcment'l'he}

¶57

relevant obsen'ations^{arc as under:}

¶58

In Rat'i Salisfi^{r'. EtlalaDtrrgtt I'ra'vtd2' this Court heldas} under;

¶59

. Sttb-n c (ll ol-Rule l-A of Ordcr l'lll pernits lhe documenls to be racaitct! onlt on leoc^{bainggrunttdh1' tht ('ourt Grqnt of leaveis} not for the^{mere askine. nor i:i IItc Cottl a} mere Post-O{fice^lo recelve lloLuments eycn in the ub.senc'e ofa nv reasolls beins furnished lbr ltt^{ilure to lile the} ;sa@ \lulcnenl. -ldntilte^{dty. in the urc on hand,no reasons v'hatsoaver} htn'a been.fitrrnshed bt^{the pctititttter'lct akttteulcquatccausebeen} shott,n us lo why^{the do<:unenls. v'hich could notbe filed earlier} along v,ith the^{u'riltan stalemcnl.Huving chosennol lo giveany} re(.|'oz, it iytol oPctt^{lo Ilrc} Palilioncr^{to contendthal the Court} helow shoultl have^{rcceived the dotumenls' sincelhe petitioner's} rtght cot tl hc atlverscl.y^{affe cretl} itr.failure^{on its} Porl^{to receive the} fof docunents. While^{it is n0 doubttuerhat admissibiliNandp} docunenls^{rtre matterswhich ouehtnot tobe toneinloalthe timeof}

¶60

, zotg (r) .a.t.t> +t t

¶61

¶62

i I i ! I I l I

¶63

'-!JL ll tl tlk'l(drc :ut1fuLf9t' .r'qll onlt htSrunt('(l^{t)ttrtltt14t1!g rL'4y14r1-lr t} IJrrlt'itltgl! .1414fo4g J^{yly'a on thr DQrt t)lthc unplitunt11Y 1t"r Jilay -tfu} tkx'ttfl(ul.\ dlo t \t'ilh th(^{vt illt-} 'tl^{\t tttL' Dt(ttt L'url ict} 13.^{(.otu.stl.fttrlhc raspondtr} 's^{ultt ralitd on l/oru{tttti \dntrottu} Rtut t lJotll<t llunmurth)3.^{In lhutLLt;t ulso. lhi.t('ourt tut\tLtkt''1 lhc} rie$ lh. leave unth:r Orlt,r l'lll Rulc l.lLl J'l! ktr171* Lh<'unenl,s be lote q111tot fu g ,11!)r Dtn: dsAit, uhsentt of' .]tlt^rcu-\olls ul rc lo locutr'nt.\ dl0tt{^v ilh tht^v t-illc \lttt(tttcrtl. lt^{obvcrvr'rl,lutttttlv if} lrarl-t^tr Pr(r'c^{led btcirt'uttttlttttLL't hL't'<tnd his cttttr'tltrt /iltlfu'} tllttrntt'ttls t ttngvith^{Ih( rrill(tl\lttt?tt :nl. th( ('ourlt'tt't tttttsitlar} ullrl,t.inc tlr dt'.fcndunl^l() lilc^{(kr( tttttt'ttl.\sub.scqrcntlr'}

¶64

l5.l'urther. a pcrusal of^{the irlpugned order sho\s that the trial} Court vizle order dated^{20 10.2()2i in IA No.76l rl 2023 llled} under Order Xl I{ule l4^{CPC. hctd that thc docurrtt nt sotrghtto bo} lnarked u'as alreadv on^{rccord hut was nol mill k.ld (lue to an} objection raiscd^{b-v rcspondcnt No.9- Conscquentl</sup> '^{thc Llocullrcllt} was not produccd bclitre^{thc Cotrrt.}}

¶65

l6.Horvever. the^{pctitiorrcrs hercinin thc rcvierv} 1'ctition^lilcdby the respondent No.9 seeking^{rcvio^/ ol- thc ordcr clrrt:d 2() 10 202i} vide I.t. No. I028 of 2023, llled^{a counter-claim asscrtirrgthat the} order .vas.itrstified,^{yet now seck to reccivethc (lorjulllentearlicr} refused tbr rnarkitlg. Ihus,^{this Court holds lhat tlrc pra)'erol the} petitioner to receive^{documentby the undcrlyir rg interlocutory}

¶66

¶67

application is not permissible and is precludcd by the doctrine of estoppel.

¶68

Since. thc document was re'jectcd due to its adrnissibility on objection raised by thc rcspondent No.9. the petitioncrs herein cannot seek thc samc document to be receivcd for thc second time without challcnging rhc order of rcjection at the relevant point of time at this belated stagc. l:urther. as the allcged document heing an agreement conveys thc rights in f'avour of other party it cannot be consitlcred in suit lirr partiti()n.

¶69

Further, the rcason of'misplacement and later traced as asserted by the petitioners hcrcin with regard to the alteged document sought to be rcceived is not considcred, as the alleged document was admittedll confiontcd to the witncss during thc crossexamination. Thus, the revision petitioners herein cannot seek to receive the said document as evidence in the main suit under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC

¶70

ln light of thc lirrcgoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that thc trial Court has rightly held that the petitioners cannot seek to rcceive the documents as evidence for

¶71

¶72

thc ad.iudication^{of the mattcl' in thc presentsuit' Co l:'cqtrcntll''this} Court lltrr.ls^{no ground to intcrlcre rr ith the inrllrllned orderiu} excrcisc ol'^{its supcrvisory} .lurisdiction^{undcr \rriclc227o1'} Constitution^{of lndia.}

¶73

Iiot^{the above-mentioncd rcasons' this Cour rs ol'thc vicu'} that the^{orclc:r o[ the trial Courl docs not sut'ibr liorrr an1 infimritr} 0r crror

¶74

Accordingly.^{the Civil l{cvisionI'etition is rl:r'oi..l of'mcrit} and is disrnissed.^{The order datcd21 '02'2021 irr lA \o 219 ol} 2024 in^{O.S No. 125 of 2022 is sustained No ordcr'IS to costs'}

¶75

Cotrsequently,^{misccllancotts pL'titions pent irrr: i1' an'v shall}

¶76

stancl closccl.^{No orderas to costs'}

¶77

SD/- AIIMEO ABDULLA KHAN AS;SISTANT REGISTRAR

¶78

//TRUE COPY//

¶79

\ SECTION OFFICER

¶80

To,