Telangana High Court
Kondra Ramulu Died His Lrs vs Smt Dandetikar Urmila on 11 February, 2022
Bench: A.Rajasheker Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
C.R.P.NO.1833 OF 2021
ORDER
The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs. One Mr. Kondra Ramulu, is the
original plaintiff, and during the pendency of the proceedings he died, and his
legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 2 to 5. The plaintiff
filed the suit in O.S.No.1736 of 2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge (FTC),
Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, for declaration of title and for recovery of
possession. The 2nd defendant in the suit filed the written statement denying the
claim of the plaintiffs. During trial, when the case is coming up for cross-
examination of D.W.1, who is the 2nd defendant in the suit, she filed the present
application in I.A.No.117 of 2020 in O.S.No.1736 of 2007 to receive certain
documents, and her case is that by oversight, she could not produce those
documents and, therefore, sought the leave of the court, which is under Order 8,
Rule 1-A(3) of CPC. By the impugned order dated 16.09.2021, the trial court
allowed the application. Assailing the same, the plaintiffs in the suit filed the
present revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that with regard to
marking of Ex.B-1 in original, which is the sale deed bearing document
No.2098/1994 dated 07.09.1994, and for which there is reference in the written
statement, the petitioners / plaintiffs have not opposed, but in respect of other
documents, there is no reference in the written statement and they are not
relevant, and hence cannot be received in evidence, but the trial court without
properly appreciating the same, allowed the application.
3. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the contesting
respondent No.1/ defendant No.2 submits that the remaining documents are the
link documents, which proves the claims of the respondent No.1/defendant No.2
and hence they are relevant. The trial court considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction allowed
the application, and hence no exception may be taken.
4. From a perusal of the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant in the
suit it could be seen that her claim is that one Mr. D.Dayanand alienated the land
admeasuring Acs.2.04 gts out of the land in Sy.No.392 of Nomula village in her
favour on 07.04.1994. In the present application she sought to file the original of
sale deed dated 07.04.1994, and the plaintiffs have also not objected for the
same. The other document which the defendant No.2 sought to receive is the
sale deed bearing document No.2351/1993 dated 09.11.1993, which is the sale
deed under which her vendor i.e., D.Dayanand purchased the property, and
hence it is a link document to the sale deed dated 07.04.1994 and there is also
reference to this document in the written statement filed by the defendant No.2.
Hence the petitioners / plaintiffs should have not have any objection.
5. The other documents are certified copies of the judgment and decree in
O.S.No.137 of 1980 dated 30.06.1980 and the written statement field in
O.S.No.137 of 1980 on 25.06.1980. The trial court based on material found that
Mr. Dandekar Narsoji, who is the father-in-law of the defendant No.2 in the
present suit, is the plaintiff in O.S.No.137 of 1980 and that Mr. Kondra Ramulu,
Mr. Kondra Mallaiah and Mr. Swamy, who are the brothers, are the defendants in
O.S.No.137 of 1980. The defendant No.2 in the present suit made averments
with regard to relationship between the three brothers and also averred that
these three brothers alienated an extent of Acs.5.30 gts out of the land in
Sy.No.392 of Nomula village in favour of Mr. Danditkar Narsoji, who is the father
of the defendant No.1, during the year 1994. It is to be further seen that
Mr. Kondra Ramulu, is the original plaintiff in the present suit, and after his
demise during the pendency of the suit, his legal representatives were brought on
record. Therefore, the trial court found that these documents are relevant for
proper adjudication of the lis and allowed the application.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this court
finds no illegality or irregularity, and the discretionary order passed by the trial
court based on material on record, warrants no interference and revision petition
is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. However, after receipt of the documents in question , if the trial court is
of the view that any additional issues are required to be framed, it is open for the
trial court to frame such issues and after affording opportunity to both the partes,
dispose of the suit in accordance with law.
8. Subject to above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
9. Interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order
as to costs.
--------------------------------------
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J
DATE:11--02--2022
AVS
