Telangana High Court
Y Ambraiah vs M Anjaiah on 6 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.6865,6856 & 6699/2018
COMMON ORDER:
Since the parties and lis involved in these revision
petitions are same, they were heard together and are being
disposed of by this common order.
2. In all the three matters, the revision petitioner is
plaintiff and respondents are defendants, in OS.No.928 of
2008. In the said O.S., the revision petitioner filed
IA.No.1007 2018 under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section
151 of Civil Procedure Code (for short 'CPC') with a prayer to
receive documents and also filed IA.No.1008 of 2018 under
Order XVIII Rule 17 praying to recall PW.1 for marking of
documents. IA.No.1006 of 2018 was also filed by him with a
prayer to reopen the case for submitting plaintiff arguments.
3. After hearing either side, the trial Court dismissed
IA.Nos.1007 and 1008 of 2018 vide separate orders dated
04.10.2018 and IA.No.1006 of 2018 was dismissed in view
of orders pronounced in IA.Nos.1007 and 1008 of 2018.
SKS, J
CRP.Nos.6865, 6856 & 6699 of 2023
Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed CRP.No.6865 of 2018
challenging the order passed in IA.No.1007 of 2018 ;
CRP.No.6699 of 2018 challenging the order passed in
IA.No.1008 of 2018 ; and CRP.No.6856 of 2018 challenging
the order passed in IA.No.1006 of 2018.
4. Heard Sri B.Shanker, learned counsel for revision
petitioner/plaintiff, and Sri Ali Faraaz Farooai, learned
counsel for respondents/defendants.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the
impugned orders passed by the trial Court, are erroneous
and unsustainable in law, as the same are contrary to the
evidence on record, the probabilities of the cases, and the
applicable legal principles. He contended that the trial Court
failed to exercise its jurisdiction in a proper and judicious
manner, as it did not pass orders on the merits of the case,
but instead, mechanically acted without applying its mind to
the facts and circumstances of the case. He further
contended that the trial Court misinterpreted the averments
made in the affidavit and hastily passed orders based solely
on the counter affidavit averments filed by the respondents,
SKS, J
CRP.Nos.6865, 6856 & 6699 of 2023
without considering the contradictions and discrepancies in
the version of respondents. He lamented that the trial Court
overlooked the specific averments made in paragraph Nos.3,
4, and 5 of the petition filed before the trial Court, which
clearly establishes the fraudulent activities and false claims
of respondents. He incessantly contended that the trial
Court failed to consider the nature of the suit, i.e., suit for
declaration, possession, and mesne profits, and that the
contention of ownership of respondents is based on false
and fabricated documents. He averred that the trial Court
also ignored the fact that the counter claim of respondents
was solely based on false assertion of ownership, which is
contradicted by the records obtained by the petitioner.
6. In addition, while advocating that the trial Court failed
to consider that allowing the petitions under challenge
would not cause any prejudice to the respondents, but
would instead ensure that justice is delivered and the rights
of petitioners are protected, prayed this Court to allow these
revision petitions, setting aside the impugned orders dated
04.10.2018 and placed reliance on the judgment rendered
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MM.Quasim
SKS, J
CRP.Nos.6865, 6856 & 6699 of 2023
Vs. Manohar Lal Sharma and Others 1, wherein, in
paragraph No.15 it was held as under:
"15. The next step to be taken is whether where a
person claiming to be such a landlord has sought to
evict the tenant for his own occupation of the
building but lost his interest in entirety in the
building during the pendency of the appeal which is
a continuation of the suit. Would he still be entitled
to maintain or continue the action after the cessation
or extinguishment of his interest in the building? To
examine this contention on merits one feature of the
proceedings under the Rent Act may be taken into
consideration. To what extent and in what
circumstances the court can take notice of events
subsequent to the institution of the action is the core
problem. This is no more res integra and need not be
examined in depth. In Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu
case [(1975) 1 SCC 770 : AIR 1975 SC 1409 : : (1975)
3 SCR 958] this Court examined this question in
relation to a proceeding under the Andhra Pradesh
Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act,
1960. The landlord in that case sought to evict the
tenant as he wanted to start his own business in the
demised premises. In other words, action was for
1981 3 SCC 36
SKS, J
CRP.Nos.6865, 6856 & 6699 of 2023
eviction for personal requirement. In the zigzag
course of proceedings it transpired that subsequent
to the commencement of the action the landlord had
come into possession of another shop which would
meet with his requirement and on this subsequent
event the tenant requested the court to non-suit the
plaintiff. At that stage the proceedings were pending
before the High Court in a revision petition at the
instance of the landlord questioning a remand to the
trial court by the first appellate court for
investigation of certain facts. In this revision at the
instance of the landlord the High Court took notice of
the subsequent event that the landlord's requirement
had been fully satisfied as he had come in possession
of another shop. In appeal by the landlord to this
Court, a serious exception was taken that the High
Court could not have taken into consideration an
event subsequent to the commencement of the
proceedings and non-suit the landlord and that too
at a stage when the proceedings were pending in
revision at the instance of the landlord. Negativing
this contention and dismissing the appeal this Court,
after referring to the decision in Lachmeshwar
Prasad Shukul v. Keshwar Lal Chaudhri [AIR 1940
FC 26 : 1940 FCR 84] , quoted with approval the
SKS, J
CRP.Nos.6865, 6856 & 6699 of 2023
following passage from Patterson v. State of Alabama
[294 US 600, 607] :(SCC p. 773, para 5)
"We have frequently held that in the exercise of our
appellate jurisdiction we have power not only to
correct error in the judgment under review but to
make such disposition of the case as justice requires.
And in determining what justice does require, the
court is bound to consider any change, either in fact
or in law, which has supervened since the judgment
was entered."
In the leading judgment in Lachmeshwar Prasad
Shukul case [294 US 600, 607] Varadachariar, J.,
observed that an appeal being in the nature of a
rehearing the courts in India have in numerous
cases recognised that in moulding the relief to be
granted in a case on appeal, the Court of appeal is
entitled to take into account even facts which have
come into existence after the decree appealed against
was made. Krishna Iyer, J., summed up the position
in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu case [AIR 1940 FC 26 :
1940 FCR 84] thus: (SCC pp. 772, 773, para 4)
"It is basic to our processual jurisprudence that the
right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a
suitor institutes the legal proceeding. Equally clear is
the principle that procedure is the handmaid and not
SKS, J
CRP.Nos.6865, 6856 & 6699 of 2023
the mistress of the judicial process. If a fact, arising
after the list has come to court and has a
fundamental impact on the right to relief or the
manner of moulding it, is brought diligently to the
notice of the tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind
to events which stultify or render inept the decretal
remedy. Equity justifies binding the rules of
procedure, where no specific provision or fair play is
violated, with a view to promote substantial justice --
subject, of course, to the absence of other disentitling
factors or just circumstances. Nor can we
contemplate any limitation on this power to take note
of updated facts to confine it to the trial court. If the
litigation pends, the power exists, absent other
special circumstances repelling resort to that course
in law or justice .... We affirm the proposition that for
making the right or remedy claimed by the party just
and meaningful as also legally and factually in
accord with the current realities, the court can, and
in many cases must, take cautious cognisance of
events and developments subsequent to the
institution of the proceeding provided the rules of
fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed..."
SKS, J
CRP.Nos.6865, 6856 & 6699 of 2023
To sum up, there was a proper and regular
application to meet with the requirements of Order
41 Rule 27, CPC for additional evidence inviting the
court's attention to a subsequent event of vital
importance cutting at the root of the plaintiff's right
to continue the action. Coupled with it, there was
evidence in the form of a certified copy of the decree
showing that the plaintiffs, even if they had some
shade of title to commence action, they having lost
all interest in the property and the property having
become one of exclusive ownership of a person not a
party to the proceedings, were no more entitled to
continue the proceedings for their own benefit."
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
respondents, vehemently opposed the submissions made by
learned counsel for petitioner and submitted that the
petitions filed by the petitioner before the trial Court were at
the fag end of the suit and was an attempt to drag and
protract the matter, and that the documents sought to be
introduced were not relevant to the suit schedule property.
He averred that the petitioner failed to show any reason for
not pleading about the said documents in the plaint, and
also failed to explain why these documents were not filed at
SKS, J
CRP.Nos.6865, 6856 & 6699 of 2023
the time of filing the plaint, during the trial, or at least
during the petitioner evidence. He lamented that the
petitioner has not demonstrated how the said documents
are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the lis, and
that the petitioner cannot take advantage of the weakness of
the case of respondents. In support of his submissions, he
relied on the judgments rendered in Union of India vs.
Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society 2, M/s.Bagai
Construction vs. M/s.Gupta Building Material Store 3,
Choudari Rajesham Vs. Choudari Lingaiah 4, and Bolla
Ajay Babu Vs. Nalla Manikyamma 5. Therefore, prayed this
Court to dismiss the revision petitions stating that there are
no infirmities or illegalities in the impugned orders.
8. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on
going through the material placed on record, it is noted that
the revision petitioner had filed petition before the trial
Court for receiving documents and to recall the evidence of
PW.1, stating that the documents were obtained under Right
to Information Act, and that the same were necessary to
(2014) 2 SCC 269
(2013) 14 SCC 1
2019 (5) ALT 226
2010 (1) ALD 163
SKS, J
CRP.Nos.6865, 6856 & 6699 of 2023
prove that the property purchased by the respondents
through their vendor, was not the original owner of the
property and to prove that the said properties were owned
by different persons. The trial Court dismissed the petitions
filed by revision petitioner on the ground that the petitioner
did not mention as to in what way the lands in survey
Nos.69 and 70 are relevant to the suit and that the
documents sought to be received do not pertain to the suit
schedule property.
9. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that mere
receiving documents would in no way cause prejudice to the
respondents as it is always open for them to cross examine
the petitioner on the basis of the said document. Further, it
is not the stage to say that petitioner has to rely on his own
documents to prove his ownership and possession, and the
same can be argued at proper point of time before the trial
Court. The limited grievance of the petitioner is to receive
documents. Whether it is relevant or admissible can be
decided while marking the document. Moreover, the
respondents are always at liberty to raise objection over its
admissibility and the trial Court can redress the same at the
SKS, J
CRP.Nos.6865, 6856 & 6699 of 2023
time of marking of document. Therefore, this Court is of the
view that the trial Court ought to have received the
documents. As such, the impugned orders are liable to be
set aside.
10. In view thereof, these revision petitions are allowed,
setting aside the orders dated 04.10.2018 passed in
IA.Nos.1007, 1008 and 1006 of 2018 in OS.No.928 of 2008
and directing the trial Court to receive the documents, as
sought for by the revision petitioner. However, both the
parties are directed to co-operate with the trial Court as the
matter pertains to the year 2018. There shall be no order as
to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date:06.02.2025
PT
