Telangana High Court
M/S Prime Properties vs Smt. Late Sana Lakshmi Devi Died Per Lrs. on 5 July, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
*****
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100, 2101
AND 2102 of 2023
C.R.P.No.1128 of 2023
BETWEEN
Smt. Sana Lakshmi Devi (Died as per LRs.,)
& others
... Petitioners
And
M/s. Prime Properties,
A registered Partnership Firm,
Represented by its partner Najeeb Ahmed
S/o. Late Mohammed Ali, having its office
At 10-5-2/1/8, Maheshwari Complex,
Masab Tank, Hyderabad -500028 & others.
... Respondent No.1
C.R.P.Nos. 2096, 2098, 2100 & 2101 of 2023
BETWEEN
M/s.Prime Properties,
A registered Partnership Firm,
Represented by its partner Najeeb Ahmed
S/o. Late Mohammed Ali, having its office
At 10-5-2/1/8, Maheshwari Complex,
Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500028
... Petitioner
And
Smt. Sana Lakshmi Devi (Died as per LRs.,) & others.
... Respondents
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100,
2101 and 2102 OF 2023
2
C.R.P.No.2102 of 2023
BETWEEN
M/s.Siddharth Infratech and Services (I) Private Limited,
A company incorporated under the Companies Act,
Having a office at Plot No.13, Road No.82, Jubliee Hills,
Hyderabad - 500033,
Represented by its Managing Director,
i.e., Sri Bandaru Narsimha Rao S/o Pandu Ranga Rao,
... Petitioner
And
Smt. Sana Lakshmi Devi (Died as per LRs.,) & others
... Respondents
Date of Judgment Pronounced: 05.07.2024
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may (Yes/No)
be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be (Yes/No)
marked to Law Reports/Journals?
3. Whether their Lordship/ Ladyship wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? (Yes/No)
_______________________
JUSTICE K. SUJANA
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100,
2101 and 2102 OF 2023
3
* THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100, 2101
AND 2102 of 2023
% Dated 05.07.2024
C.R.P.No.1128 of 2023
BETWEEN
# Smt. Sana Lakshmi Devi (Died as per LRs.,)
& others
... Petitioners
And
$ M/s.Prime Properties,
A registered Partnership Firm,
Represented by its partner Najeeb Ahmed
S/o. Late Mohammed Ali, having its office
At 10-5-2/1/8, Maheshwari Complex,
Masab Tank, Hyderabad -500028 & others.
... Respondent No.1
C.R.P.Nos. 2096, 2098, 2100 & 2101 of 2023
BETWEEN
# M/s. Prime Properties,
A registered Partnership Firm,
Represented by its partner Najeeb Ahmed
S/o. Late Mohammed Ali, having its office
At 10-5-2/1/8, Maheshwari Complex,
Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500028
... Petitioner
And
$ Smt. Sana Lakshmi Devi (Died as per LRs.,) & others
... Respondents
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100,
2101 and 2102 OF 2023
4
C.R.P.No.2102 of 2023
BETWEEN
# M/s.Siddharth Infratech and Services (I) Private Limited,
A company incorporated under the Companies Act,
Having a office at Plot No.13, Road No.82, Jubliee Hills,
Hyderabad - 500033,
Represented by its Managing Director,
i.e., Sri Bandaru narsimha Rao S/o Pandu Ranga Rao
... Petitioner
And
$ Smt. Sana Lakshmi Devi (Died as per LRs.,) & others
... Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri Satish Prasuram,
learned Senior counsel appearing
for Sri S. Malla Rao
^ Counsel for respondents : Sri M.V. Durga Prasad
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
AIR 2004 AP 538
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100,
2101 and 2102 OF 2023
5
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100,
2101 and 2102 OF 2023
COMMON ORDER:
Since the I.As questioned before this Court were disposed
of by the court below by way of common order, all the C.R.Ps
are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit.
CRP No.1128 of 2023 is filed by the defendants 3 to 11 to set
aside the docket order dated 04.04.2023 in O.S.Nos.588 to 591
of 2022. The other CRPs are filed to set aside the common order
dated 19.07.2023 passed in I.A.Nos.286 to 289 of 2023 in
O.S.Nos.588 to 591 of 2022 by the Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-
Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally. I.A.No.286 of 2023 is filed
U/o.16, Rule 5 & 6 r/w 151 of Civil Procedure Code (in short
'C.P.C') praying the Court to summon the original record
pertaining to Volume No.IV (Sl.No.785) in relation to the
Document No.707 of 1952 on the file of Sub- Registrar, Red-
Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad including the thumb impressions
pertaining to the said document No.707 of 1952. I.A.No.287 of
2023 is filed U/o.16, Rule 5 & 6 r/w 151 of C.P.C., to summon
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100,
2101 and 2102 OF 2023
the entire record from Central Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad
pertaining to FIR No.305 of 2014 on the file of P.S. KPHB,
Kukatpally. I.A.No.288 of 2023 is filed U/o.16, Rule 5 & 6 r/w
151 of C.P.C., to summon the entire record from XIX -
Metropolitan Magistrate -cum- AJCJ, Kukatpally pertaining to
FIR No.305 of 2014 on the file of P.S. KPHB, Kukatpally.
I.A.No.289 of 2023 is filed U/o.16, Rule 5 & 6 r/w 151 of C.P.C.,
to summon the entire record including the statement of account
pertaining to bank account No.35423850732 of Sri Siddarth
Infratech and Services (I) Private Limited, from State Bank of
Hyderabad, Film Nagar Branch, Hyderabad. All the said I.As
were filed by respondent Nos.2 to 9 who are defendant Nos.4 to
11 in the suits and the court below has allowed all the I.As by
way of common order.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter
referred to as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in the original
suit.
4. The brief common pleadings in the petitions are that on
the basis of alleged original of Ex.A42 sale deed, respondent
No.1/plaintiff firm filed four suits vide O.S.Nos.588 to 591 of
2022 claiming the suit schedule properties of the respective
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100,
2101 and 2102 OF 2023
suits and the defendants have denied the truth and validity of
the alleged Ex.A42 dated 02.05.1952 shown as Document
No.707 of 1952 allegedly executed by Wali Mohammed in favour
of Hashim Ali and that it is subject matter of investigation in
FIR.No.305 of 2014 on the file of K.P.H.B., Kukatpally P.S.
Similar FIR.No.51 of 2018 on the file of Central Crime Station,
Hyderabad was also filed by one R. Koteshwar Rao, the alleged
partner of the plaintiff firm and filing of these cases was
admitted by PW1 in his cross examination. The truth and
validity of original of Ex.A42 goes to the root of the matter.
Hence, it is just and necessary that the record pertaining to
Volume No. IV (Sl. No.785) in relation to Document No.707 of
1952 on the file of Sub-Registrar Office, Red-Hills, Nampally,
Hyderabad including the signature and thumb impressions
pertaining to registered document No.707 of 1952 are necessary
for adjudication of the matter. They are also seeking to summon
the entire record pertaining to the investigation in FIR.No.305 of
2014 on the file of P.S. KPHB, Kukatpally and that of XIX
Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Additional Junior Civil Judge,
Kukatpally, with reference to the said FIR.No.305 of 2014. PW1
admitted that he entered into reconstruction deed with Sri
Siddharth Infratech and Services (I) Private Limited to
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100,
2101 and 2102 OF 2023
reconstitute the plaintiff's firm. The said Sri Siddharth Infratech
and Services (I) Private Limited issued cheques in favour of Mir
Ashim Ali Khan who filed FIR No.305 of 2014 on the file of P.S.
KPHB, Kukatpally against the partners of the plaintiff's firm and
to whom PW1 alleged as an impostor, but subsequently the
accused partners of the firm in the said FIR entered into a
compromise and got the said FIR quashed. PW1 denied
knowledge about the payments made to him and therefore
summoning of the record pertaining to the said account bank
account No.35423850732 of Sri Siddharth Infratech and
Services (I) Private Limited maintained with the State Bank of
Hyderabad, Film Nagar Branch, Hyderabad is necessary.
Therefore, they prayed to allow the I.As.
5. The respondent No.1 who is plaintiff in the suit filed
counter with common averments stating that the defendant
Nos.4 to 11 claimed to have purchased six plots from defendant
No.1 Society, have knowledge of the sale deed vide document
No.707 of 1952 dated 02.05.1952 at least from 2001 when the
present batch suits were filed. Defendant No.1 society is
claiming to have purchased the subject matter of the suit
schedule properties from one Mir Fazeelath Hussain, who
himself suffered a decree in O.S.No.122 of 1973 and as such
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100,
2101 and 2102 OF 2023
defendant No.1 society itself has knowledge of the sale deed vide
document No.707 of 1952 and the decree in O.S.No.122 of 1973
at least from the date of decree viz., 22.11.1973.
6. The defendants are attempting to have a parallel trial,
unconcerned and unconnected with the present batch suits in
respect of quashed FIR vide No.305 of 2014 on the file of
P.S.KPHB and the allegation that the sale deed document
No.707 of 1952 was subject matter of investigation is incorrect
since the impostor filed the false private complaint in FIR
No.305 of 2014 claiming to be the owner of property vide, Sale
deed document No.707 of 1952 and decree in O.S.No.122 of
1973. Against quashing of the FIR, SLP was filed and the same
was also dismissed. The sale deed vide document No.707 of
1952 as such could not be subject matter of investigation since
the de facto complainant in FIR No.305 of 2014 himself falsely
claimed ownership under the sale deed and the same is not
relevant to the present batch suits. The certified copy of
registered sale deed vide document No.707 of 1952 is marked as
Exhibit and it is a public document of over 70 years old and as
such the present petition seeking to summon the record from
the office of Sub- Registrar, Red-Hills, Hyderabad is not
maintainable. Further the defendants are seeking to summon
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100,
2101 and 2102 OF 2023
the bank statement of Sri Siddharth Infratech and Services (I)
Pvt. Limited, who is not a party to the batch suits. The reliefs
sought for are beyond the scope of the suits and the same is an
attempt to derail and delay the trial. Therefore, it is not
necessary to call for bank statement. The defendants are
repeatedly, habitually and maliciously harassing the plaintiff
with malafide intentions by filing several petitions, C.R.Ps and
S.L.Ps and have been unsuccessful and filing of the present
petitions is one such attempt. It is open for the defendants to
file relevant documents in their evidence and not by way of
harassing the plaintiff to indefinitely postpone the trial. As
such, prayed the trial Court to dismiss the petitions.
7. The respondent No.1/plaintiff filed additional counter
affidavit stating that the Document No.707 of 1952 to be
summoned from the Office of Sub-Registrar, Red-Hills, is illegal
and is an attempt to seek a relief which is unknown to the Law
and against the provisions of Sections 35, 58, 59 & 60 of
Registration Act and provisions of Section 114 of Evidence Act.
There is a presumption of a registered document being validly
executed and calling the record from Central Forensic
Laboratory pertaining to FIR No.305 of 2014 is also not in
accordance with law and the impostor i.e., Mir Hasham Ali
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100,
2101 and 2102 OF 2023
Khan S/o. Mir Inayath Ali Khan impersonating as Original
Hashim Ali s/o Mohammed Ali filed a false private complaint
which was registered as FIR No.305 of 2014 by P.S. KPHB,
Kukatpally and FIR was quashed by the High Court and against
quashing of the FIR, SLP was also filed, which was dismissed.
The request of the defendants to call for the record from PS.,
KPHB, Kukatpally and also from XIX Metropolitan Magistrate,
Kukatpally with regard to FIR No.305 of 2014 is a malafide
exercise to delay the proceedings. Their further request to
summon the bank statements of M/s. Sri Siddarth Infratech
and Services (I) Private Limited who is not a party to batch suits
is beyond the scope of the suits. As such, prayed to dismiss the
petitions with exemplary cost.
8. On hearing either side and on going through the material
placed on record, the trial Court vide order dated 19.07.2023
allowed all the petitions.
9. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision petitions are filed
stating that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the
defendants having knowledge of the Sale Deed Document No.
707 of 1952 dated 02.05.1952 filed frivolous petitions for
summoning the same with vague grounds. The trial Court erred
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100,
2101 and 2102 OF 2023
in observing that as the original of Ex.A42 is not filed,
summoning the said document is required and at the time of
execution of Ex.A42, the purchaser Hashim Ali was two years
old and the original was in the custody of his guardian and
Paternal Grandfather and the Paternal Grandfather died in the
year 1960 and the original sale deed came in the custody of Mir
Fazeelath Hussain i.e. Paternal Uncle of Hashim Ali and was not
returned. Further, the trial Court has not appreciated the
admitted fact that Ex.A42 sale deed has never been challenged
for over 70 years and so also the Decree passed in O.S No.122 of
1973. The order of the trial Court was passed on assumptions
and presumptions and therefore, prayed the Court to set aside
the same.
10. Heard Sri Satish Prasuram, learned senior counsel
representing Sri S. Malla Rao, learned counsel on record for the
revision petitioner/plaintiff and Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, learned
counsel for respondents/defendants.
11. Learned senior counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the order under challenge
is erroneous and without there being any valid reasons, the trial
Court allowed the petitions which is not in accordance with law.
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100,
2101 and 2102 OF 2023
The sale deed document is 70 years old and it is also confirmed
vide decree in O.S.No.122 of 1973, which is not challenged by
any of the party and therefore, now summoning the documents
is only to drag the proceedings even though there is a direction
from the Apex Court to dispose of the matters as early as
possible. Therefore, prayed the Court to allow these revision
petitions by setting aside the order of the trial Court.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents/defendants would submit that the sale deed
document which is filed under Ex.A42 is not a original
document and it is a certified copy. Therefore, they filed a
petition for summoning the same along with thumb impressions
of executor and also filed petitions to summon the record
pertaining to FIR from the police station as well from the Court
below and statement of account from the bank to prove the
same. There is no illegality in the order of the trial Court and
there are no merits in these revisions. Therefore, prayed the
Court to dismiss these revision petitions.
13. There are four IA's filed by the defendant Nos.4 to 11 in
the trial Court for summoning the sale deed document No.707
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100,
2101 and 2102 OF 2023
of 1952, dated 02.05.1952 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Red-
Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad.
14. Originally O.S.No.588 of 2022 (O.S.No.898 of 2001) was
filed by the plaintiff namely M/s. Prime Properties, a
partnership firm against 13 defendants and sought relief of
cancellation of sale deed No.2548 of 1996 dated: 15.04.1996
which was executed in pursuance of E.P.No.12 of 1996 in
O.S.No.581 of 1994 on the file of 1st Senior Civil Judge, Ranga
Reddy and consequential perpetual injunction in respect of 70
Acres of land in Sy.No.1007 of Kukatpally and also sought
cancellation of decree dated: 27.02.1996 in O.S.No.581 of 1994.
15. According to the plaintiff, he is the owner and possessor
of the suit schedule property by virtue of sale deed dated
15.04.1996. One Mr. Hashim Ali was owner and possessor of
1500 Acres of land in Sy.No.806, 1007, 1009, 1043 to 1065 of
Kukatpally, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, by virtue
of registered sale deed vide document No.707 of 1952, since the
said Hashim Ali was a minor by then, he was represented by his
Grand father Nawab Rayees Yar Jung Bahadur. Around 1963,
A.P. Housing Board had acquired 1117 Acres of land in
Sy.No.1009, 1045 to 1065 on payment of compensation which
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100,
2101 and 2102 OF 2023
was paid to legal heirs of late Nawab Rayees Yar Jung Bahadur.
The legal heirs of Nawab Rayees Yar Jung Bahadur had filed
O.S.No.330 of 1968 on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court
and sought enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of
Land Acquisition Act, which was allowed on 30.08.1972 by
enhancing the compensation.
16. The real owner Hashim Ali dealt with remaining 340 Acres
of land in Sy.No.1007 by way of oral gifts to relatives i.e.,
Maternal Uncle, aunt, his benefactors, foster brother and foster
sister. The oral gift was confirmed by Memorandum of Hiba on
14.07.1972. Hashim Ali retained 43 acres of land in Sy.No.806
of Kukatpally. Later on, Mr. Hashim Ali and his donees were
dispossessed from the respective properties in an illegal manner
thereby Mr.Hashim Ali as indigent person filed O.S.No.122 of
1973 on the file of 1st Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad for delivery of possession of all the properties.
17. During the pendency of the suit, a compromise was
effected and a decree was passed on 22.11.1973. In-terms
thereof, Mr. Hashim Ali and his donees became absolute owners
and possessors of 340 Acres of land in Sy.No.1007 and 45 acres
of land in Sy.No.806 of Kukatpally. In-terms of the said
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100,
2101 and 2102 OF 2023
compromise, Mr. Hashim Ali gave up his right to claim
compensation as awarded in Land Acquisition proceedings. The
Decree in O.S.No.122 of 1973 was acted upon by the parties
and thereby there is no dispute with regard to title and
possession of land in Sy.No.1007 and 806 of Kukatpally.
Further application was filed by Hashim Ali and his donees for
mutation in revenue records but no action was taken. The name
of Mir Fazeelath Hussain continued in revenue records in
respect of land in Sy.No.806 and 1007 of Kukatpally. Thereafter
Mr. Hashim Ali and his donees have constituted a firm called
'Sahara Real Estates Management and Consultancy' under a
deed dated 16.09.1974. The entire property in Sy.No.1007
admeasuring 340 acres was brought and constituted as capital
of some of the partners in the firm.
18. On 8.10.1974 Mr. Hashim Ali gave a letter to Tahasildar,
Hyderabad West to effect mutation in favour of partnership firm.
The firm carried business of buying rams to graze the vast
kancha land and selling them. On 10.11.1983 Mr. Hashim Ali
and other donees retired from the firm and their accounts were
settled wherein they have received Rs.3,00,000/- towards full
and final settlement. Thereafter a supplementary deed was
executed on 25.02.1984 wherein the name of the Sahara Real
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100,
2101 and 2102 OF 2023
Estate Management consultancy changed to Prime Properties.
Thus the plaintiff became owner and possessor of 340 Acres of
land in Sy.No.1007 of Kukatpally.
19. Thereafter in the month of September, 2001, the plaintiff
came to know that Mr. Mir Fazeelath Hussain filed a false
declaration vide CC.No.F1/6360/1976 Under ULC Act in
respect of land in Sy.No.1007 of Kukatpally by claiming
possession. However, the same is false and not binding on the
plaintiff. On knowing the same, the plaintiff approached
Revenue Officials in the month of September, 2001 and it also
came to know that the defendants have filed O.S.No.730 of 2001
on the file of 1st Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy against the
District Collector and sought injunction. Further it also came to
know that the defendants also filed O.S.No.581 of 1994 on the
file of 1st Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy basing on a false
fabricated agreement of sale dated 13.06.1973 and obtained a
fraudulent decree from the Court. Basing on the said decree
obtained by fraudulent manner the defendant society got a sale
deed on 15.04.1996 vide document No.2548 of 1996 through
process of the Court. As the sale deed No.2548 of 1996 is result
of fraud it is not binding and liable to be canceled and thereby
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100,
2101 and 2102 OF 2023
the suit is not maintainable without prior notice as required
under section 126 of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964.
20. The 1st defendant of the suit in O.S.No.588 of 2022
(O.S.No.898 of 2001) denied the suit claim by filing detailed
written statement wherein constitution of Sahara Real Estate
Management and consultancy under deed dated 16.09.1974
and also pooling of 340 Acres of land in Sy.No.1007 of
Kukatpally into partnership property is denied.
21. It is the specific case of the defendant No.1 that
Mr. Hashim Ali never exercised ownership and possessory rights
over the un-acquired land of Ac.349.24 Gts thereby alleged gift
(HIBA) in favour of his relatives is concocted one. Even the
alleged compromise in O.S.No.122 of 1973 on the file of the 1st
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is also
collusive and never intended to be acted upon and never acted
upon. Even the dispossession of Mr. Hashim Ali and his donees
and subsequent delivery of possession is also not evident from
the Memo of compromise. Thus the possession was never
delivered to Hashim Ali. If at all, legal heirs of Mr Nawab Mir
Rayees Yar Jung Bahadur have confirmed the ownership of Mir.
Hashim Ali, then he could have done some acts in terms thereof
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100,
2101 and 2102 OF 2023
to secure rights over the property, but from 1972 to till now, he
failed to take such steps. As per the A.P. Land Reforms Act,
1975 any person who holds more than 10 acres of agricultural
land has to file a declaration to that effect. Though he holds 350
acres, no such declaration is filed by Hashim Ali and his
donees. Other defendants also filed written statements in detail
denying and claiming the properties on various grounds and the
plaint was also amended. After amending the plaint additional
written statements also filed by the defendants and the plaintiff
also filed rejoinder by giving reply to the allegations made in the
written statement of defendant Nos.4 to 11.
22. There are four suits vide O.S.Nos.588, 589, 590 and 591
of 2022 with similar pleadings. Basing on an order of the Court
the four suits were clubbed and common evidence is being
recorded in O.S.No.588 of 2022. Further, all the petitions are
filed under Order 16 Rule 5 and 6 R/w 151 of C.P.C.
23. According to the respondents/defendants, there is no
original of Ex.A-42 sale deed and it is never executed in favour
of one Hashim Ali and thereby, they are seeking production of
the original record relating to of Ex.A-42 from SRO, Red-Hills,
Hyderabad.
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100,
2101 and 2102 OF 2023
24. The contention of the revision petitioner/plaintiff is that
Hashim Ali was aged about two years at the time of transaction
and therefore the document was in possession of grandparent
and later it was given to his father, as such he was never in
possession of the original. Therefore, they filed certified copy of
the document.
25. I.A.No.286 of 2023 is filed by the defendants in the suit to
summon the original record pertaining to Volume No.IV
(Sl.No.785) in relation to the Document No.707 of 1952 on the
file of Sub-Registrar, Red-Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad.
26. The main contention of respondents/defendants is that
the suit is filed basing on Ex.A.42 sale deed, whereas the
plaintiff has filed certified copy. As Ex.A.42 is not the original
document, the defendants are disputing the signature of
Hashim Ali on it. As such, they requested the Court to summon
the original record from the Sub-Registrar Office, Red-Hills,
Nampally, Hyderabad.
27. The contention of learned counsel for the revision
petitioner/plaintiff is that the document is of the year 1952 and
the defendants are very much aware of the said document from
the year 2001. They have not disputed the said document from
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100,
2101 and 2102 OF 2023
the year 1952 or even from the year 2001. Learned counsel
further submitted that Sri Mir Fazeelath Hussain suffered
decree in O.S.No.122 of 1973, as such, the respondent
No.1/defendant No.1 has knowledge of sale deed vide document
No.707 of 1952 and by filing petitions, they are attempting to
have detailed parallel trial, unconcerned and unconnected with
the present batch suits.
28. The defendants are disputing the thumb impression on
Ex.A.42 and they have also requested the Court to send the said
document for Forensic examination. The certified copy cannot
be sent for forensic examination, but the original document
should be sent to the forensic examination. When the plaintiff
is relying on Ex.A.42 which is a certified copy, there is no
illegality in disputing the said document by the defendants.
Further, the plaintiff also contended that as the document is
more than 30 years old, presumption under Section 90 of the
Indian Evidence Act has to be taken, but, it is not the stage to
raise presumption, it is only an interlocutory application filed by
the defendants for summoning the document from the Sub-
Registrar office. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order of
the trial Court in summoning the original document No.707 of
1952 from the Sub-Registrar Office, Red Hills, Nampally,
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100,
2101 and 2102 OF 2023
Hyderabad. Hence, the order of the trial court in I.A.No.286 of
2023 is confirmed.
29. The respondents/defendants also filed I.A.No.287 of 2023
under Order XVI Rules 5 & 6 r/w.151 of CPC to summon the
entire record from Central Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad
pertaining to FIR No.305 of 2014 on the file of P.S. KPHB,
Kukatpally. I.A.No.288 of 2023 was filed under Order XVI Rules
5 and 6 r/w.151 of CPC to summon the entire record from XIX
Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-AJCJ, Kukatpally, pertaining to
FIR No.305 of 2014 on the file of P.S. KPHB, Kukatpally.
Though a complaint is given vide FIR No.305 of 2014, disputing
the document, later the complainant compromised the matter
and got the said FIR quashed.
30. According to the respondents herein, the record still
proves that the document is fabricated and forged, whereas the
contention of the revision petitioner is that the FIR was quashed
in view of the compromise entered into between the parties and
it is also affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore,
calling the said record is nothing but reopening the case. As
such, prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100,
2101 and 2102 OF 2023
31. The contention of the respondents/defendants is that
though the said FIR was quashed in view of compromise, no
compromise order was filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff in
the Court. Therefore, summoning the record of FIR from the
Court and from police Station is not illegal as they want to prove
the alleged forgery made by the plaintiff firm. If the case record
pertaining to FIR No.305 of 2014 is called from the XIX
Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-AJCJ, Kukatpally, no prejudice
would be caused to the revision petitioner.
32. As seen from the record, the said FIR was quashed by this
Court vide order dated 28.01.2019 and the same was assailed
by the family members of the impostor Mir Abbas Ali Khan and
others before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was
dismissed, vide order dated 15.03.2021 in SLP (Crl) Diary
No.28139 of 2020 which is also marked as Ex.A.90 in the batch
suits. Now, the respondents herein cannot call for the said
record as it amounts to reopening of FIR No.305 of 2014 on the
file of P.S. KPHB. The learned counsel for the respondents
herein relied on the judgment of this Court in Sunder Vs Mohd.
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100,
2101 and 2102 OF 2023
Ismail and Others 1, wherein, in Paras 9 and 10 it was held as
under :
"9. It is needless to observe that the 1st respondent herein
filed a detailed counter inter alia contending that no such
letter has been ever executed by him in favour of the
petitioner. The 1st respondent in toto denied the execution of
any such consent letter. On the other hand, the respondent
contended that the petitioner is set up by the 2nd respondent
in order to frustrate the execution of the compromise decree
obtained by him against the 2nd respondent. The petitioner is
none other than the cousin brother of the 2nd respondent.
Both of them have colluded together in order to deprive the
valuable rights accrued to him under the compromise decree,
is the case of the 1st respondent set up by him before the Trial
Court.
10. The learned trial Judge after an elaborate
consideration of the matter and referring to all the relevant
facts and circumstances, came to the conclusion that the
application filed by the petitioner herein lacks bona fides and
the same has been filed only to protract the proceedings in the
claim petition."
33. In view of the observations made in the above judgment,
in the present case, when the FIR itself was quashed, the
question of summoning the document from the police station
does not arise and the respondents have also requested the
Court to summon the document from the Forensic Laboratory.
The said aspect can be considered by the trial Court at
1 AIR 2004 AP 538
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100,
2101 and 2102 OF 2023
appropriate stage, if the matter requires said document. As
such, the trial Court order summoning the document from the
concerned police and from the Forensic Laboratory is nothing
but reopening the FIR which is quashed by this Court and as
affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As such, the order of
trial Court in I.A.Nos.287 of 2023 and I.A.No.288 of 2023 are set
aside.
34. Further, the respondents herein have also filed I.A.No.289
of 2023 under Order XVI Rules 5 and 6 r/w.151 of CPC to
summon the entire record including the statement of account
pertaining to the bank account No.35423850732, State Bank of
India, Film Nagar Branch of Sri Siddharth Infratech and
Services (I) Private Limited. The contention of the respondents
is that the said Sri Siddharth Infratech and Services (I) Private
Limited transferred an amount of Rs.8 Crores from the above
said account to Hashim Ali for compromising the matter in FIR
No.305 of 2014 which is a partner of plaintiff firm and in order
to analyze the facts relating to fraud played by the plaintiff,
summoning the said statement of account is necessary. Though
Sri Siddharth Infratech and Services (I) Private Limited is not a
party to the suit, the alleged FIR No.305 of 2014 was quashed in
Crl.P.No.6007 on 28.01.2019. According to the plaintiff, the
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100,
2101 and 2102 OF 2023
said FIR was quashed on the ground of compromise which took
place in the year 2019 and Sri Siddharth Infratech and Services
(I) Private Limited is not a party to the suit. Further the
contention of revision petitioner is that the said Sri Siddharth
Infratech and Services (I) Private Limited is no way concerned
with the suit and calling for the statement of account of the said
Sri Siddharth Infratech and Services (I) Private Limited is
nothing but abuse of process of law and the trial Court without
considering the same, erroneously passed the order calling for
the bank account by observing that the same does not cause
any prejudice to the revision petitioner.
35. It is the contention of respondents herein that the said Sri
Siddharth Infratech and Services (I) Private Limited transferred
the amount to Hashim Ali, but nothing is mentioned how the
said fact is necessary to this case who is a stranger to the
proceedings. Further, when the said FIR was quashed by this
Court and as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP,
calling for record is nothing but abuse of process of law, simply
observing that not causing prejudice to the revision petitioner is
not a ground to call for the statement of account. As such, the
order of the trial Court in I.A.No.289 of 2023 is hereby set aside.
Accordingly, all the Civil Revision Petitions are partly allowed.
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100,
2101 and 2102 OF 2023
36. C.R.P.No.1128 of 2023 which is filed challenging the
docket order 04.04.2023 has no merits as inspite of giving
sufficient time to the defendants 4 to 11 to cross-examine Pw.1,
they failed to do so. There is no illegality in the order of trial
Court as there is a direction from the Hon'ble Supreme Court for
early disposal, rightly posted the matter for cross examination of
Pw.1. That being so, the relief seeking to set aside the said
docket order cannot be granted. C.R.P.No.1128 of 2023 is
dismissed. The interim order dated 23.06.2023 granted by this
Court stands vacated. The trial Court is directed to proceed with
the trial in accordance with law.
37. In view of the above discussion, C.R.P.No.2096 of 2023 is
allowed setting aside the common order dated 19.07.2023
passed in I.A.No.287 of 2023 in O.S.No.588 of 2022 to 591 of
2022 by the Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at
Kukatpally.
38. C.R.P.No.2100 of 2023 is allowed setting aside the
common order dated 19.07.2023 passed in I.A.No.288 of 2023
in O.S.No.588 of 2022 to 591 of 2022 by the Senior Civil Judge,
Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally.
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100,
2101 and 2102 OF 2023
39. C.R.P.Nos.2101 and 2102 of 2023 are allowed setting
aside the common order dated 19.07.2023 passed in I.A.No.289
of 2023 in O.S.No.588 of 2022 to 591 of 2022 by the Senior Civil
Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally.
40. C.R.P.No.2098 of 2023 is dismissed confirming the
common order dated 19.07.2023 passed in I.A.No.286 of 2023
in O.S.No.588 of 2022 to 591 of 2022 by the Senior Civil Judge,
Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally. No costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date:05.07.2024
Gvl/Rds
Note : L.R.Copy to be marked
B/o.
Rds
