Kanchena Kanaka Laxmi Vs Kanchena Narayana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Kanchena Kanaka Laxmi Vs Kanchena Narayana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 01.08.2025 passed in I.A. No. 431 of 2025 in O.S. No. 94 of 2013, dismissing the petitioners' application to receive a certified copy of the 1-B Register, suffers from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. +1 more

Court's answer

On the totality of aspects, the court reached the irresistible conclusion that the application was filed by the petitioners only to protract the proceedings and to fill up the lacunae and laches in their case.

Ratio / Principle

Since the 1-B Register was admittedly not listed in the list of documents, there was no reference to it in the plaint, and no explanation was offered for the belated filing when the matter was coming up for arguments, there was no factual foundation for receiving the document; the judgments relied upon by the petitioners have no application to these facts.

Key takeaways

Applying the caution laid down in K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palani Swamy, the petitioners failed to give valid and sufficient reasons to the satisfaction of the court as to why the document was not filed along with the plaint or at least while leading their evidence, and therefore they do not deserve any indulgence of this Court.ratio¶66
The trial court rightly declined to receive the document sought to be presented by the petitioners and dismissed the application; the revision petitioners failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court, and the civil revision petition therefore fails.ratio¶68

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana (Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.), in C.R.P. No. 3595 of 2025 decided on 08.12.2025, dismissed a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 94 of 2013 (Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapalli) challenging the order dated 01.08.2025 in I.A. No. 431 of 2025, whereby the trial court refused to receive a certified copy of the 1-B Register at the stage of arguments. Held: under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC a document which ought to have been produced along with the plaint cannot be received without leave of the court; the 1-B Register was admittedly not listed in the list of documents, found no mention in the plaint, and no explanation was offered for the belated application, so there was no factual foundation for its reception. Applying the caution in K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palani Swamy (para 19), the court found the petitioners failed to give valid and sufficient reasons for not filing the document with the plaint or while leading evidence, and concluded the application was filed only to protract the proceedings and to fill up lacunae and laches. The trial court had rightly declined to receive the document; no illegality or irregularity warranted interference. Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no order as to costs; pending petitions, if any, closed.

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3595 OF 2025

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order dated 01-08-2025 passed in l.A. Nos. 431 of 2025 in O.S. No. 94 of 2013 on the file of the court of the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, at Peddapalli

Between:

1.^'Kanchena Kanaka Laxmi, Wo. Late Buchaiah, Age. 53 years, Occ. Household, R/o H.No.2-1-210l1, Kontham Wada, Peddapalli Town and District.

Kanchena Soujanya, Wo. Sathish, Age. 29 years, Occ. Household, R/O 2-121011, Kontham Wada, Town and District.

3 Kanchena Rakesh, S/o. Late Buchaiah, Age. 25 years, Occ. Private Employee, R/o H.No.2-1-210l1, Kontham Wada, Peddapalli Town and District. ... Petitio n ers/P la i ntiffs

AND

Kanchena Narayana, S/o. Rajaiah, Age. 69 years, R/o. AnkampalliVillage of Kalva Srirampur Mandal in Peddapalli District.

Kanchena Sheshamma, Wo. Chandraiah, Age. 46 years,

R/o. AnkampalliMllage of Kalva Srirampur Mandal in Peddapalli District. ... Respondents/Defendants

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances 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. 94 of 2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judgecum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapalli, pending disposal of the accompanying Civil Revision Petition

Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri. Mahboob Hussain

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri V. Rama Chander Rao

The Gourt made the following:

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI)

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

CML REVISION PEIITION No.3595 of 2ol25

DATED: o,4.12.2ot25

Between:

Kanchena Kanaka Laxmi and 2 others

...Petitioners

AND

Kanchena Narayana and another.

...Respondents

ORDER:

This Revision Petition is filed assailing the Order dated 01.08.2025 in I.A.No.43l of 2025 in O.S.No.94 of 2OL3, on the lile of learned Senior Civil Judge, at Peddapalli, by which I.A.No.431 of 2025,liled by the petitioners to receive documents was dismissed.

Heard Sri Mohboob Hussain, learned Counsel for petitioners and Sri V.Ram Chander-Rao;-lenrned Counsel for respondents.

l,earned Counsel for petitioners would submit that petitioners herein liled a suit urde O.S.No.94 of 2013, on the file of learned Senior Civil Judgb, Peddapalli, to declare petitioners/plaintiffs as owners and possessors of suit schedule propert5r, for recovery of suit schedule propert5r and to declare the sale deed No.7427 of 2OL2, dated L2.L2.2O12 as null and void and not binding on^the

LNA,J C.R.P.No.3595 of 2025 2

petitioners; that respondents entered appearance and liled written statem,:nt resisting the claim of the petitioners; that the entire trial was completed and the matter was coming up for arguments. At this stage, petitioners filed three applications i.e., I.A.No.431 of 2025 to receive certified copy of 1-8, I.A.No.432 of 2o2s to reopen the evidenc:e of petitioners and I.A.No.44L of 2o2s to recall p.w.1. The trial crrurt uide common order dated 01.08.2025, dismissed the applications with an observation that there is no whisper in the plaint about the documents sought to be taken on record and without- any pleading, adducing evidence would not help the petitior:ers. It was further observed that suit was posted for arguments, at this stage, petitioners filed these applications to receive documents and the same are devoid of merits and thus, dismissed the applications- Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition is filed.

4- Learned Counsel for petitioners further submitted that trial Court f,riled to exercise powers vested under Order 7 rule 1a(3) and - " -order 18 rule 17 R/w. section 151 of cpc; and passed the Oidei in a mechar.ical manner without assigning proper reasons. He further submitted that 1-B Register, which is sought to be taken on record, is a crucial document to prove the case of the petitioners and therefore, the trial court ought to have received the document on

LNA,J C.R.P.No.359s of²⁰²⁵

3

record. In support of^{his contention, learned Counsel for petitioners} relied upon following^{Judgmentsof tl.e Hon'lcleApex court:}

1l K.K.Velusamg^{Vs. ILPaI anisamgt,}

ii) vadiraj Naggappa^{verneko;r I/s.sharadcho;ndra} Prabhqkar @gatd,

iii) Sugan dhi^{(Deo,d) bg Lrs Vs. P.rqikumo;ta,}

iv) sortem Aduocate^{Bar Assoclationvs. union of Indid,} and

vl R.N.Jadi &' Brothers^{Vs. Subhashchandra's}

Per contra, learned^{Counselfor respondents submitted that the} trial Court has^{rightlydismissedthe applicationand the same was} hled at the belated^{stage, when the matter was coming up for} arguments. He further^{submittedthat without any foundation, the} documents cannot^{be taken on recordand the applicationswere filed} only to drag on the^{proceedings,therefore, the trial court has rightly} disrnissed the application^{as- the same.*isdevoid of any merit' In} support of his contention,^{he relied upon the Order passedby this} court in Bhoasing^{(Died) per I'Rs. and oth.ers vs. Nllmratlro.and}

' lzor^{r; l r scc 275}

'?lzooey^{4 scc 4lo}

3 lzozo; lo scc 706

4 lzoos;6 scc 344

5 lzooz;6 scc 420

LNA,J C.R.P.No.3595 of 2025

4

other:* in c-R-p.Nos-r629, gzs4 and. 3g43 of 2024, which was referre:d to and relied upon by the trial Court.

6- Perusal of the record discloses that suit was filed in the year 2ol3 rrnd the entire triar was completed and when the matter was coming up for arguments, petitioners filed the application to receive certified copy of r-B register. In the affidavit filed in support of the applicttion to receive said document no proper reason has been assignr:d for non filing of the document along with plaint and no explanrrtion has been offered for filing the application at the belated stage, that too when the matter was coming up for arguments. Furthe.:, there is no reference in the plaint with regard to document sought to be taken on record, thereficre, there is no factual foundaiion with regard to the document sought to be received.

It. is relevant to refer to order 7 rure 14(3) of cpc, as per which, the document which ought to be produced by the petitioners along with tht: plaint shall not be permitted to be produced without leave of the cotrrt. In the present case, admittedly, the document i.e., 1-B register has not been listed in the list of documents and there is no \ \whisper in the praint and further there is no explanation for the qes-rnordrnerte delav in filing the application as well as relevancy of the

6 zozs 1sy ALD 767

LNA,J C.R.P.No.3595^{of 2025}

5

documenttoprovetheclaimofthepetitioners.TheJudgments referred^{to and relied upon by the petitioners have no application to} the facts^{of the} Present^case'

S.Itisapttorefertothejudgmentoft}reHonbleSupremeCourt inK.K.VelusamgVs.N.PqlorniSoltlllT,whereinatpara-19,itis observed^{as hereunder:-}

Wemayaddawordofcaution.Tywpou)erunderSectionlSl orOrderlsRulelToftheCodeisnotintended"tobeused routinely,^merely for^{the asking' If so used' it will defeatthe} uery^{purposeof uarious o}t1iLnts to tte Code to expedite trials.^{But wlere the application is found to be bona fide and} where fue^{ad"ditional euidence, irat or d.oanmentary,tpill} [email protected] assistinrenderingjustice,an,dthecourtissatisftedtlutnonproduction^{earliei was for uatid" and suJficientreasons'the} courtmaaexerciseitsd.iscretiontorecallttrcuitnessesor permit the fresh^{euidene' But if it does so' it slwuld ensure} that tle^{process does not become a protracting tactic' The} courtshouldfirstlyaward"appropriatee.os.tstotheotlerparta to compensate for^{the delag'.Seco-ndtg''tle court should talce} up and' "opl"i"^{the case within afued time sc?wdule so that} tledelayisauoided.Thirdty,ifttleappticationisfoundtob.e mischieuous,^or fiuolous,^{or to-querupnegligen@or laannae'} it stautd^{be rejected tttith?waug costs"'}

\ \

9.^- tn^{the tight of the aforesaid judgmentand applyingthe ratio to} theinstantcase,itistobeseenthatt}repetitionersfailedtogive vatid and^{sufficient reasons to the satisfactionof the courtas to why} the said^{documentwas not filed arong with the ptaint, or at ]east} '1zott;tl^scc27s

6

LNA,J C.R.P.No.3595 of 2025

while' Ieading evidence on their behalf and therefore, the petitioners do not deserve any indulgence of this Court.

10' Taking into account the totarity of a, these aspects, this court come!; to an irresistibre concrusion that the present apprication is filed ty the petitioners only to protract the proceedings and to fi, up the lar:unae and laches in their case.

I 1' tn the light of the foregoing discussion and reasons and arso the sei:tled regar position of law, this court is of considered opinion that t,e trial court has rightry declined to receive the document sought to be presented by the petitioners and dismissed the application' The revision petitioners failed to point out any illegarity or irreS;ularity in the impugned order passed by the trial court, warranting interference by this Court.

12' H'-'fice, this civil Revision petition fa,s and is accordingly

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

pltitiong pending, if any, shall stand closed.

//TRUE COPYII

SEGTION OFFICER

To,

The

One Peddapaili.

One

' 4. Two

DL/PSL

I

HIGH COURT

DATED:08l1iU2O2S

ORDER

s:.
c
t TH q
c
i)
r)I 7 r[8 lu:t6
i

CRP.No.3595 of 2025

DISMISSING]'HE C.R.P

J-rs tBlzlza