Telangana High Court
Shaik Shoukath Ali vs Naser Khamees on 26 September, 2025
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY
Civil Revision Petition No.2293 of 2025;
Civil Revision Petition No.2296 of 2025
and
Civil Revision Petition No.2332 of 2025
COMMON ORDER :
Since the issue arising out of the instant Civil
Revision Petitions is one and the same and the parties
thereto are also the same, they are being heard and
decided by this Common Order.
2. Heard Mr.Muhammad Veqar Hussain, learned
counsel for the petitioner in all the Revisions.
3. For convenience the facts in Civil Revision Petition
No.2293 of 2025 are discussed hereunder.
4. Civil Revision Petition No.2293 of 2025 is filed by the
petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
assailing the Common Order dated 11.06.2025 in
E.A.Nos.3, 4 and 5 of 2025 in E.A.No.5 of 2017 in E.P.No.7
of 2016 passed by the III Additional Rent Controller,
Hyderabad, (for short, 'the impugned order').
::2:: PSK,J
crp_2293_2025&batch
5. Vide the impugned common order, the Trial Court
dismissed all the above three E.A.s., i.e., E.A.No.3 of 2025
which were filed by the petitioner under Order XVIII Rule
17 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908
praying the Trial Court to re-call CW.1 for marking of
documents as exhibits; E.A.No.4 of 2025 which was filed
by the petitioner under Section 151 of Civil Procedure
Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court to re-open the evidence;
and E.A.No.5 of 2025 which was filed by the petitioner
under Rule 7(5) of R.C. Rules praying the Trial Court to
receive the document, viz., certified copy of judgment and
decree dated 13.20.2020 in O.S.No.511 of 2017 as
evidence of the petitioner / claim petitioner.
6. The instant batch of Civil Revision Petitions flow from
an execution proceedings, viz., E.P.No.7 of 2016 arising out
of O.S.No.991 of 2016 which was filed by the petitioner
herein before the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,
at Hyderabad, seeking for relief of perpetual injunction by
restraining the landlord, his heirs, men, servants, agents
and person or persons from interfering with the suit
schedule property. In the said E.P. proceedings, the
evidence of petitioner herein stood closed on 05.09.2024
::3:: PSK,J
crp_2293_2025&batch
whereafter the petitioner had submitted that there is no
further evidence which he intends to lead, and therefore
the matter was posted for final arguments. It was at that
stage when the instant E.A.s, viz., E.A.Nos.3, 4 and 5 of
2025 were filed by the petitioner seeking for marking of a
document which is said to be a certified copy of the
judgment and decree dated 13.02.2020 in O.S.No.511 of
2017. The said applications were filed by the petitioner as
late as on 13.03.2025 and, as stated earlier, the evidence
of petitioner stood closed on 05.09.2024.
7. Another fact which is revealed from the proceedings
is that the aforesaid certified copy which the petitioner
intends to mark was obtained by him almost a year ago,
i.e., on 13.02.2024, vide an application which he has made
on 29.01.2024. That is the period when the evidence of
petitioner had not been closed, and which fact further
indicates that when the evidence of petitioner was recorded
the petitioner was very well aware of the judgment and
decree dated 13.02.2020 in O.S.No.511 of 2017. Therefore,
the petitioner had a certified copy with him yet he did not
feel it to be either marked or referred to in his evidence. It
was in this context that the above three E.A.s were filed
::4:: PSK,J
crp_2293_2025&batch
and the learned executing Court found that no justifiable
reasons have been assigned while moving the said
applications except taking the plea of inadvertence and
oversight.
8. Considering the reasons assigned by the Trial Court
more particularly looking into the factual developments
that have transpired pending the E.P.No.7 of 2016 before
the Executing Court, this Court does not find any illegality
or perversity on the part of the Executing Court while
rejecting the E.A.Nos.3, 4 and 5 of 2025 in E.A.No.5 of
2017 in E.P.No.7 of 2016, vide the common impugned
order. However, it appears that the said E.A.s have now
been filed only with a mala fide intention of protracting the
proceedings before the Trial Court, and in the process the
petitioner who is occupying the premises as an alleged
tenant continues to occupy the premises.
9. Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons, this Court
does not find any merit in the Civil Revision Petition
No.2293 of 2025. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition
fails and the same deserves to be and is accordingly
dismissed. No costs.
::5:: PSK,J
crp_2293_2025&batch
10. As a consequence, Civil Revision Petition Nos.2296
and 2332 of 2025 also stand dismissed. No costs.
11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if
any in these Revisions, shall stand closed.
___________________
P. SAM KOSHY, J
Date : 26.09.2025
Ndr
