Telangana High Court
K.Mohan Reddy vs K.Raji Reddy And Another on 28 May, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
I.A.NO.1 OF 2022
AND
A.S.No. 1269 OF 2002
O R D E R:
Heard Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel on
behalf of Sri Sheri Prasad, learned counsel for appellant and Sri B.
Vivekananda, learned counsel for respondent.
2. Aggrieved by the judgment in OS No. 128 of 1998
on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, the
unsuccessful plaintiffs filed this Appeal. Along with this appeal, IA
No. 1 of 2022 was filed to bring on record the documents mainly
the compromise decree in OS No. 81 of 1973 and the amicable
settlement document dated 15.09.1975.
3. Parties are referred to as arrayed in the original suit.
4. The suit is for permanent injunction restraining defendant
from interfering with the possession of plaintiffs over the suit
schedule properties. The suit schedule properties are: Ac.1-00
land in Survey No. 425-D of Nagaram Village, Hasanparthy
Mandal; Ac.0-20 gts, in Survey No. 725 of Nagaram village,
Hasanparthy Mandal; and 1/4th share out of a House bearing
Gram Panchayat No. 1-03 and open land situated at Nagaram
Village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District. The 2nd plaintiff
is son of the 1st plaintiff through his second wife. Defendant is the
son of the 1st plaintiff through his first wife.
5. For the purpose of disposing of the LA. a detailed
reference of facts and evidence adduced before trial court is not
necessary. Hence in brief:
Plaintiffs' case is that mother of the defendant got
separated from the 1st plaintiff and filed a suit for partition ie.
Original Petition No. 63 of 1970 on the file of the Sub-Court,
Warangal. The suit ended in compromise. The defendant was given
his share of property in Original Suit No. 10 of 1972 on the file of
the Sub-Judge, Warangal. Both the suits ended in compromise
and defendant had taken property towards full and final
satisfaction of his claim by relinquishing his rights in other
properties. The defendant is trying to dispossess plaintiffs from the
suit schedule properties. Hence the suit for permanent injunction.
6. The defendant agreeing filing of the suits and ending of
the same in compromise, contended that he has not relinquished
his rights in other properties. He further contended that plaintiffs
were never in possession of suit schedule property and with mala
fide intention they filed the suit.
7. The trial Court by judgment dated 29.01.2002 dismissed
the suit holding that plaintiffs are not entitled for injunction as
they have suppressed the facts and included the land of the
defendant also in suit schedule properties.
8. The 1st Plaintiff stated that documents sought to be
introduced were misplaced and could not be produced before the
trial Court, they are very crucial, hence, may be taken on record.
9. The defendant contested this IA stating that suit is of
1998; judgment of the trial Court is dated 29.01.2002; Appeal is
filed in 2002, thus much water has flown. Plaintiffs wantonly did
not produce them before the trial Court, hence, IA may be
dismissed. He relied upon the judgements of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Municipal Corpn., Greater Bombay v. Lala
Pancham 1; Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin 2; N. Kamalam v.
Ayyasamy 3 and K.R. Mohan Reddy v. Net Work Inc. 4, to
buttress his contention that an Application under Order 41 Rule
27 of Civil Procedure Code,1908 cannot be ordered in routine
course in a casual manner. If it is filed with much delay, the Court
should assign the reasons such as the importance of the
documents sought to be brought etcetera in those Applications
before allowing them.
10. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the cases referred to supra, it is to be seen, as
stated above, the 1st plaintiffs/Appellant filed IA No. 1 of 2022 to
bring on record the documents viz. Compromise Decree in OS No.
81 of 1973 dated 17.09.1975 and the amicable settlement
AIR 1965 SC 1008
(2012) 8 SCC 148
(2001) 7 SCC 503
(2007)14 SCC 257
document dated 15.09.1975 stating that these documents since
were misplaced could not be produced before the trial Court.
11. It is to be seen that though not filed, the 1st plaintiff
referred to these documents in their plaint, evidence and
arguments before the Court below. Even the defendant also
referred to these documents in his written statement, evidence and
arguments. Undisputedly, 'amicable settlement document dated
15.09.1975 pertains to the properties owned by the 1st plaintiff,
out of which, suit schedule properties are carved out. O.S. No. 81
of 1973 was ended by judgment dated 17.09.1975 in terms of the
amicable settlement document dated 15.09.1975. Hence,
undoubtedly, these are the crucial documents for settlement of the
current lis.
12. That apart, judgment in OS No. 81 of 1973 dated
17.09.1975 is the judgment of a Court of Law and hence, is a
public/judicial document and the amicable settlement document
dated 15.09.1975 is part and parcel of the said document. Even if
this IA is dismissed, this Court can call for them for reference.
Further, it is not the case of the defendant that these two
documents are presently invented for the purpose of this appeal
and they were not referred to in the original suit. Both the
plaintiffs and the defendant have referred to the said documents
before the Court below in their pleadings.
13. The underlying principle in the judgments of the
Hon'ble Court referred to above is before allowing any Application
under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, the Court has to record the
reasons as to how the said documents are relevant for the purpose
of adjudication of the case. Admittedly, both the parties before the
trial Court have referred to these documents to claim their shares.
Hence, these documents, in my opinion, are crucial and relevant
for the purpose of adjudication of the lis.
14. Now the question is whether the 1st plaintiff
approached this Court with the present I.A. with clean hands. On
oath, it is stated that these documents were misplaced and hence,
they could not be produced before the trial Court. The defendant
has not seriously contended the reason of misplacement. However,
since the suit is of 1998 and for the last 27 years, the rights of
plaintiffs and defendant are not decided, it is justifiable to allow
the IA with costs and remand the matter to the trial Court for
disposal expeditiously within the time frame.
15. In the result, I.A. No. 1 of 2022 is allowed subject
to payment of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to the
Telangana High Court Senior Officers' Association.
Consequently, the matter is remanded to the II Additional Senior
Civil Judge, Warangal with a direction to receive both the
documents viz. Compromise decree of O.S.No. 81 of 1973 and
amicable settlement document dated 15.09.1975, consider the
same and pass appropriate orders duly taking them into
consideration, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. The Appeal also accordingly, allowed. No costs.
16. Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand
closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
28th May 2025
ksld
