Sri. M.V. L. Prasad vs Nagesh Shatkar
2025 Latest Caselaw 5703 Tel

Telangana High Court

Sri. M.V. L. Prasad vs Nagesh Shatkar on 26 September, 2025

       THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.3479, 3546 AND 3549 OF 2025

Ms. Challa Kiranmayee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.



COMMON ORDER:

1. The Civil Revision Petitions (CRPs) arise out of a docket order

dated 26.09.2024 passed by the Trial Court allowing the I.As. filed by

the respondents/plaintiffs for receiving the documents and recalling

and reopening the evidence of DW.1.

2. The petitioner before this Court is the defendant No.4 in the

Suit filed by the plaintiffs for injunction.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the

Trial Court should have allowed the recalling and reopening of

evidence only upon satisfaction of Order XVIII Rule 17 of The Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908. However, the Court finds that the Trial Court

has given reasons for allowing the plaintiffs I.As. and granting leave to

the plaintiffs to receive the list of documents subject to proof and

relevancy.

4. The Trial Court has also relied on a judgment of the Supreme

Court in Sugandhi (dead) by Lrs and Anr v. P. Raj Kumar (Civil Appeal

No.3427 of 2020 dated 13.10.2020) to hold that the Court should take

a lenient view when an application is made for production of the

documents. The Trial Court has also held that the plaintiffs have

shown sufficient cause for grant of leave to receive the documents on

behalf of the plaintiffs. Although counsel appearing for the

petitioner/defendant No. 4 submits that the Trial Court failed to

account for such submissions, this becomes irrelevant since the

present CRPs have been filed after one year from the impugned order,

dated 26.09.2024.

5. The CRPs have been filed on 19.09.2025. The delay on the part

of the petitioner/D4 in filing the CRPs against the impugned order

raises a balance of convenience against the petitioner. The impugned

order in any event contains reasons.

6. C.R.P.Nos.3479, 3546 and 3549 of 2025, along with all

connected applications, is accordingly dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J 26th September, 2025.

NDS