Telangana High Court

A. Sharada vs Ch. Padmaja And Another on 10 February, 2025

         THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

          CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.773, 793,

                      799 and 852 of 2021

COMMON ORDER:

Since all these Civil Revision Petitions are arising out of

the same L.G.O.P. No.157 of 2017, they are analogously heard

together and being disposed of by this common order.

2. Civil Revision Petition No.773 of 2021: This Civil

Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner to set aside the order

dated 22.02.2021 passed in I.A.No.202 of 2021 in L.G.O.P.

No.157 of 2017 by the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil

Court at Hyderabad. By the impugned order, the petition, filed

under Section 151 of the CPC to re-open the L.G.O.P. for the

purpose of filing certain documents, was dismissed by the trial

Court.

3. Civil Revision Petition No.793 of 2021: This Civil

Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner to set aside the order

dated 22.02.2021 passed in I.A.No.203 of 2021 in L.G.O.P.

No.157 of 2017 by the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil

Court at Hyderabad. By the impugned order, the petition, filed

under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC to

SKS,J CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.773, 793, 799 AND 852 OF 2021

recall the witness-DW.1 for marking of documents, was

dismissed by the trial Court.

4. Civil Revision Petition No.799 of 2021: This Civil

Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner to set aside the order

dated 22.02.2021 passed in I.A.No.204 of 2021 in L.G.O.P.

No.157 of 2017 by the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil

Court at Hyderabad. By the impugned order, the petition, filed

under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 of the CPC to

receive certain documents, was dismissed by the trial Court.

5. Civil Revision Petition No.852 of 2021: This Civil

Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner to set aside the order

dated 22.02.2021 passed in I.A.No.284 of 2021 in L.G.O.P.

No.157 of 2017 by the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil

Court at Hyderabad. By the impugned order, the petition, filed

under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the CPC to receive certain

documents, was dismissed by the trial Court.

6. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will

be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

7. Draped in brevity, the facts of the case are that the

applicant filed application vide L.G.O.P. No.157 of 2017 before

the Special Court under the A.P. land grabbing (Prohibition) Act,

SKS,J CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.773, 793, 799 AND 852 OF 2021

1982 at Hyderabad under Section 8(i) of the A.P. land grabbing

(prohibition) Act wherein the revision petitioner herein is the

respondent No. 2. It is stated that the applicant obtained the

schedule property i.e., Plot bearing No.564-A41-III admeasuring

759 square yards. Jubilee Hills Co-operative House Building

Society Limited, Road No.92, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, from her

grandmother namely, Smt. Rama Thulasamma, who is having

membership No.1903 in Jubilee Hills Co-operative House

Building Society Limited, vide sale deed document bearing

No.4038 of 2003. Since the applicant is resident of USA, she

appointed her GPA holder namely, Sri P.Srihari, who is resident

of East Godavari District, on 17.09.2001 to look after the

schedule property. While things stood thus, respondent Nos.1

and 2 illegally grabbed the schedule property claiming the same

to be Plot bearing No.294/A of Sri Venkateswara Cooperative

House Building Society and started construction thereon with

the help of anti-social elements even after clarifying the

boundaries by appointing Advocate Commissioner in

O.S.No.2435 of 1980. Hence, the applicant filed the L.G.O.P.

No.157 of 2017. After framing the issues and when the evidence

is closed, respondent No.2- revision petitioner herein filed

SKS,J CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.773, 793, 799 AND 852 OF 2021

I.A.Nos.202, 203, 204 and 284 of 2021 to re-open the case, recall

D.W.1 and to mark certain documents on his behalf.

8. By the impugned orders dated 22.02.2021, the trial

Court has dismissed the I.As. Aggrieved by the same, respondent

No.2 filed these revision petitions.

9. Heard Sri S.S.R.Murthy, learned counsel for the revision

petitioner and Sri Mahmood Ali, learned counsel for the

respondent No.1. Perused the material available on record.

10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted

that though the death certificate filed by the petitioner shows

that Late Smt. Merla Rama Thulasamma died on 16.01.1990, it

is stated that said Late Smt. Merla Rama Thulasamma

transferred the schedule property in the name of respondent

No.1 vide letter ref No.JCS/1903/02 dated 28.01.1992. He

further submitted that the Death Certificate of the said deceased

and the other connected documents mentioned in the petitions,

which were not available at the relevant point of time, are just

and necessary to be marked in the proceedings as they will have

bearing on the result of the L.G.O.P. He also submitted that the

trial Court ought to have considered the request for marking of

the said documents as they are crucial to decide the case.

SKS,J CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.773, 793, 799 AND 852 OF 2021

Hence, he prayed the Court to allow these Civil Revision

Petitions.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1

submitted that her grandmother namely Late Smt Merla Rama

Thulasamma died on 10.02.1994 in Prahalad Babu Ashram in

kommaragiri Patnam near Amalapur, East Godavari District. He

further submitted that the documents now sought to be marked,

are not at all relevant to decide the case and the impugned I.As.

are filed with a view to protract the proceedings. Hence, he

prayed the Court to dismiss these Civil Revision Petitions.

12. In view of the rival submissions made by both the

parties, this Court has perused the material available on record.

It is apparent that there appears to be dispute as to the exact

date of death of Late Smt Merla Rama Thulasamma and

boundary allotment in respect of the schedule property.

13. At this juncture, it is apposite to reproduce the

paragraph No.9 from the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case

of Sugandhi (dead) Vs. P.Raj Kumar 1which reads as under:

"9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the

2020 (10) SCC 706

SKS,J CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.773, 793, 799 AND 852 OF 2021

procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the documents under subrule (3).

(Emphasis supplied)

14. A plain reading of the above would abundantly make it

clear that if there are cogent reasons, the documents can be

received for proper adjudication of the matter.

15. On the aforesaid touchstone, in the instant case, it is

noteworthy that the appraisal note No.131

(C.No.684/V&E/D1/02) dated 06.06.2005 by General

Administration (V&D) Department, Government of A.P. along

with annexures-IIA, IIB, IIC and XIV deals with the detailed

survey conducted by the Vigilance and Enforcement officials in

respect of alleged encroachment of Ac.11.00 guntas of

Government land adjacent to the land of 1st Bn., APSP by the

Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society Limited,

Hyderabad. So also, the brief note, dated 29.3.2011 sought to

be marked is also relevant to ascertain the area and actual

situation of Jubilee Hills Co-operative House Building Society

Limited. That apart, since there is dispute as to the exact date of

SKS,J CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.773, 793, 799 AND 852 OF 2021

death of Smt Merla Rama Thulasamma, the death certificate now

sought to be marked is just and relevant for the purpose of

proper adjudication of the matter.

16. In view of the foregoing analysis and peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case, this Court, having respectful

agreement with the view taken by the Apex Court in the

aforesaid judgment, is inclined to direct the trial Court to mark

the following three documents:

"(1) Death certificate of late SmtMerla Rama ThulasammaW/o. MerlaVenkataSubba Rao

(2) Certified copy of brief note vide file No.B1/347/87 dated 29.03.2011

(3) Attested true copy of appraisal note No.131 (C.No.684/V&E/D1/02) dated 06.06.2005 by General Administration (V&D) Department, Government of A.P along with annexures-IIA, IIB, IIC and XIV."

17. Hence, while I.As. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2021 stand

allowed, I.A. Nos. 204 and 284 of 2021 stand allowed in part to

the extent of receiving the above mentioned documents.

18. Accordingly, the C.R.P.Nos.773 and 793 of 2021 are

allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 22.02.2021

passed in I.A.Nos.202 and 203 of 2021 in L.G.O.P. No.157 of

SKS,J CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.773, 793, 799 AND 852 OF 2021

2017 by the trial Court directing it to re-open the L.G.O.P and

recall the evidence of DW.1 for marking the aforesaid

documents. The C.R.P.Nos.799 and 852 of 2021 are allowed in

part directing the trial Court to mark the aforesaid documents.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also