Telangana High Court
Tippani Narsaiah Died Per Lrs vs G.Yethirajula Murahari Died Per Lrs on 9 June, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2928 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and
validity of the docket order dated 14.08.2024 passed in OS.No.591
of 2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.
2. Heard Sri H.Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for
Sri Nalla Mukunda Reddy, learned counsel on record for revision
petitioners, and Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, learned senior counsel
appearing for Sri Narendar Jalli, learned counsel on record for the
respondents.
3. The petitioners are plaintiffs and the respondents are
defendants in the suit.
4. In nut-shell, the facts of the case are that plaintiffs filed the
suit in OS.No.591 of 2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge,
Warangal for declaration that they are owners and possessors of the
suit schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property. The
defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement
denying the suit claim, issues were framed, trial commenced and
the matter was posted for evidence of P.W-1 on 21.06.2019; that
LNA, J
during the chief-examination of P.W-1, certain documents were
sought to be marked which include unregistered sale deeds dated
23.06.1972, 03.08.1980 and 09.06.1974; that defendant No.2 filed
a memo dated 26.06.2019 raising objection with regard to marking
of the said documents; that the trial Court considering the objection
raised by defendant No.2 accorded permission to the plaintiffs to
mark the documents subject to impounding the same with required
stamp duty and penalty; and accordingly, the said documents were
impounded with required stamp duty; and the trial Court ordered
that the said documents be received in evidence for collateral
purpose, with liberty to the defendants to cross-examine the
witness with regard to admissibility and genuinity of the said
documents.
5. Aggrieved by the same, defendant No.2 filed Revision vide
CRP.No.1758 of 2019 and this Court, on due consideration of the
contentions raised by both the parties in the said CRP and also
considering the legal position and referring to various judgments,
has held that the order under revision therein is sustainable and
does not warrant any interference and accordingly, disposed of the
CRP, vide order dated 12.04.2022, granting liberty to defendant
LNA, J
No.2 to raise all the pleas of admissibility and genuineness of
unregistered sale deeds dated 23.06.1972, 03.08.1980 and
09.06.1974 in the cross-examination of P.W-1.
6. The grievance of the petitioners herein is that despite the
said order passed by this Court in CRP.No.1758 of 2019, the trial
Court once again entertained the objection raised by defendant
No.2 and passed the impugned docket order dated 14.08.2024
holding that the aforesaid unregistered sale deeds are not
admissible in evidence. Hence, the present Revision Petition is
filed.
7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners has drawn the
attention of this Court to para 13 of the order dated 12.04.2024
passed by this Court in CRP.No.1758 of 2019, which reads as
hereunder:-
"Therefore, in view of the above settled legal position,
the order of the trial Court is sustained and it does not
warrant any interference by this Court as the said
document Nos.2 to 4-the unregistered sale deeds, are
impounded with requisite stamp duty in accordance
with the Stamp Act".
7.1. By referring to aforesaid observation of this Court, learned
counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the impugned
LNA, J
docket order passed by the trial Court is contrary and not in
accordance with the directions issued by this Court in
CRP.No.1758 of 2019. He further submitted that the issue with
regard to admissibility of the aforesaid unregistered sale deeds is
adjudicated and settled by this Court in CRP.No.1758 of 2019,
wherein this Court, after duly considering the objections and
contentions raised by defendant No.2, has sustained the earlier
impugned order of the trial Court directing that the unregistered
sale deeds be marked for collateral purpose. Learned counsel
further submitted that when the said documents were sought to be
marked, once again defendant No.2 raised an objection for marking
of the same by referring to para 14 of order passed in CRP.No.1758
of 2019, wherein this Court has observed that defendant No.2 is at
liberty to raise all pleas as to the admissibility and genuineness of
the documents in the cross-examination of P.W-1, which clearly
infers that on marking of the said documents, defendant No.2 can
cross-examine the witness on the aspect of admissibility and
genuineness. However, the trial Court on erroneous interpretation
of the order passed by this Court in CRP.No.1758 of 2019 has once
again held that the documents are inadmissible in evidence, vide
LNA, J
impugned docket order and hence, the learned counsel prayed to
allow this Revision Petition.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that mere impounding of unregistered documents, does not make
the said documents admissible in evidence and hence, the trial
Court has rightly held that the unregistered sale deeds are
inadmissible in evidence. Learned counsel further submitted that
the plaintiffs are claiming rights over the suit schedule property
under the unregistered sale deeds and as such, the trial Court has
rightly refused to mark the said documents and hence, the
impugned docket order warrants no interference by this Court.
9. In considered opinion of this Court, when the issue with
regard to marking of documents has already been settled by this
Court vide order dated 12.04.2024 passed in CRP.No.1758 of
2019, it is impermissible for the trial Court to once again examine
the said issue and pass orders contrary to and in violation of the
orders passed in CRP.No.1758 of 2019.
10. The authorities of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to
and relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners
are not gone into by this Court since the issue involved in the
LNA, J
present Revision Petition is no more res integra in view of the
orders passed in CRP.No.1758 of 2019.
11. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the trial Court committed grave error in entertaining
the objection raised by defendant No.2, which was subject matter
of the earlier Revision Petition, vide CRP.No.1758 of 2019 and
was already dealt with and decided by this Court.
12. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition deserves to be
allowed.
13. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting
aside the docket order dated 14.08.2024 passed in OS.No.591 of
2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. The trial Court is
directed to mark the aforesaid documents and proceed further with
the matter.
14. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
No costs.
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date:09.06.2025
dr
