Telangana High Court
G. Madhusudan Rao vs Ammireddy Srinivas Reddy on 10 June, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2384 of 2023
ORDER:
This revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order
dated 22.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.605 of 2020 in
O.S.No.551 of 2019 by the XI Additional Chief Judge, City
Civil Court, Hyderabad whereby the application filed by the
petitioner under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code,
1908, seeking for return of original documents was
dismissed.
2. Heard Sri Sankalp Pissay, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri K.Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel
for respondent No.1. It is endorsed that respondent Nos.2
and 3 are not necessary parties. Perused the record.
3. The petitioner herein is defendant No.1, respondent
No.1 herein is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are
the defendant Nos.2 and 3 before the trial Court.
4. The brief facts of the case are that upon request of
the petitioner, respondent No.1 has arranged a sum of
Rs.35,00,000/- as loan to the petitioner on 24.05.2012 and
LNA, J
the petitioner executed a simple mortgage deed vide
document No.1410 of 2012, dated 24.05.2012. Since the
petitioner defaulted in repayment of the amount, the above
suit was filed. Respondent No.1 filed a suit vide
O.S.No.551 of 2019 on the file of the XI Chief Judge, City
Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioner and
respondent Nos.2 and 3 for recovery of money of
Rs.94,24,666/- and to declare the agreement of sale vide
document No.1901 of 2015, dated 15.05.2015 as null and
void.
5. While the suit was pending for adjudication, the
matter was compromised and settled outside the Court and
the respondent No.1 not pressed the suit and the suit was
dismissed as not pressed on 24.08.2020. Consequent
upon dismissal of the suit, the petitioner herein filed an
application vide I.A.No.605 of 2020 seeking return of the
simple mortgage deed bearing document No.1410 of 2012,
dated 24.05.2012 and the original sale deed bearing
document No.856 of 2012 which pertains to the suit
schedule property. The trial Court vide the impugned
LNA, J
order, dismissed the said application with an observation
that the documents which were filed before the Court are
permitted to be received not by the other party to file the
same and thus, the application was dismissed without even
issuing notice to respondent No.1. Aggrieved by the same,
the present revision is filed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner has given the Original title deed pertaining to
the suit schedule property to respondent No.1 and
executed simple mortgagee deed bearing document
No.1410 of 2012, dated 24.05.2012 and since the entire
amount was paid, the petitioner is entitled to receive the
original title deed documents. He would further submit
that the trial Court without considering the fact that the
petitioner being the owner of the suit schedule property is
entitled to receive the documents, erroneously dismissed
the application only on the ground that the documents
shall be returned only to the person who filed the
documents, but not to the other persons.
LNA, J
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1
placed reliance on the jugdment passed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in K.K.Velusamy v. N.Palanisamy 1, wherein
the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
"(d) The inherent powers of the court being complementary
to the powers specifically conferred, a court is free to
exercise them for the purposes mentioned in Section 151 of
the Code when the matter is not covered by any specific
provision in the Code and the exercise of those powers
would not in any way be in conflict with what has been
expressly provided in the Code or be against the intention of
the legislature."
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon
the judgment passed by the High Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench in W.P.No.100487 of 2022, wherein it was
held that though documents are produced by the plaintiff,
the defendant being owner of the property is entitled to
receive the said documents and that the trial Court erred
in interpreting Order XIII Rule 9 of C.P.C. The intent of this
provision is to ensure that documents, once they have
served their purpose in litigation and are no longer
required by the Court, should be returned to their rightful
owners.
(2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 275
LNA, J
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
No.1/plaintiff would submit that the original documents
are produced by the respondent No.1/plaintiff in the suit.
Therefore, respondent No.1 is alone entitled to receive the
original documents. He would further submit that the trial
Court has rightly dismissed the application by correctly
interpreting Order XIII Rule 9 of C.P.C., as per which the
party producing the document is entitled for return of the
same. Thus, prayed to dismiss the application, as the
same is devoid of merits.
10. Perusal of record would disclose that respondent No.1
filed the subject suit and produced the original documents
before the trial Court. Admittedly, one of the documents is
title document of suit schedule property, which is executed
in favour of the petitioner and the other is registered simple
mortgage deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the
plaintiff. It is also not in dispute that the matter has been
settled out of the Court on payment of entire amount to the
satisfaction of respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 has
also filed memo to that effect on 21.08.2020, wherein it is
LNA, J
specifically stated that the matter has been settled out of
the Court between the parties. Accordingly, the suit was
dismissed as not pressed against the defendants. There is
dispute that as per Order XIII Rule 9 of C.P.C., the person
who submitted the documents though he is not party to
the suit is entitled for return of the said documents.
However, as held by the High Court of Karnataka, a person
who is the owner of the property is entitled to receive the
documents of the said property. Since the claim of
respondent No.1 has been settled and he not being the
owner of the suit schedule property is not entitled to the
original document. On the other hand, the petitioner being
the owner of the suit schedule property is entitled to the
document.
11. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the
trial Court has committed error in dismissing the
application without properly appreciating the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the
petitioner herein is the owner of the suit schedule property
LNA, J
and therefore, he is entitled to receive the Original title
documents of the suit schedule property.
12. In view of the above findings, the Civil Revision
Petition is allowed and the trial Court is directed to return
the simple mortgage deed bearing document No.1410 of
2012, dated 24.05.2012 and the original sale deed bearing
document No.856 of 2012 in respect of the suit schedule
property to the petitioner on due substitution of certified
copies of the same. No costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if
any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date:10.06.2025
EDS
