[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Syed Muqeem vs G.S Susheel Kumar on 2 April, 2026
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3865, 3882 & 4117 of 2025
DATE: 02.04.2026
Between:
Syed Muqeem, S/o. Syed Ifteqar.
...Petitioner
AND
G.S.Susheel Kumar (Died) Per LR.s and 4 others.
...Respondents
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Mr. Mohammed Adam, learned counsel for the petitioner;
and V.Jagapathi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. Since the issue involved in the instant Civil Revision Petitions is
one and the same and the parties also being the same, they are taken up
together and decided by this Common Order.
3. The petitioner herein is defendant No.3; respondent Nos.1 to 3
herein are the plaintiffs, and respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the defendant
Nos.1 and 2 before the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, they
will hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.
4. Civil Revision Petition No.3865 of 2025 is filed assailing the order
dated 17.03.2025, in I.A.No.2012 of 2025 in O.S.No.231 of 2015, passed
by the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. Vide
the impugned order, the Trial Court allowed the I.A.No.2012 of 2024
preferred by the plaintiffs under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC seeking for
recalling of PW.1 for the purpose of marking of the documents.
5. Civil Revision Petition Nos.3882 & 4117 of 2025 are filed
challenging the order dated 17.03.2025, in I.A.No.2031 of 2024 &
I.A.No.2030 of 2024 in O.S.No.231 of 2015, passed by the XI
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. Vide the
impugned common order, the Trial Court allowed the aforesaid two
I.As.; one filed for receiving certified copy of the two driving licenses
dated 27.06.2002 and 01.09.2005 and another filed to receive the
certified copies of the plaint as also the written statement filed by the
parties in O.S.No.438 of 2015.
6. So far as I.A.No.2012 of 2024 is concerned, the contention of the
plaintiffs was that they have filed a suit for declaration, recovery of
possession and consequential injunction against the defendants. The suit
is one which was filed in the year 2015, and after the evidence of PW.1
was recorded the plaintiffs obtained certain certified copies of the two
driving licenses; one issued by the RTA, Hyderabad Central Zone, dated
27.06.2002 and another issued by the RTA North Zone, dated
01.09.2005, which according to the plaintiffs was earlier filed but
somehow the same got misplaced from the records, and it was for this
reason that a fresh certified copy is filed and for marking the same
recalling PW.1 would be necessary.
7. The defendants filed a counter denying the request for recalling of
PW.1 and marking of the said document on the ground that defendant
No.1 is said to have impersonated himself as plaintiff No.1 and have got
the sale deed dated 22.10.2013 executed in favour of defendant No.2.
That being the contention, since the alleged sale deed dated 22.10.2013
is not under challenge and the same not being the subject matter of the
suit and may have no binding effect on this suit, recalling PW.1 insofar
as marking of these documents is not of much relevance.
8. So far as I.A.No.2030 of 2024 is concerned, the contention of the
plaintiffs was that initially they have filed certain certified copies of the
driving licenses but the certified copies were found to be missing at the
time of marking, which according to the plaintiffs appears to be a
deliberate act by some vested party to the proceedings and it was in the
said circumstances that fresh certified copies were obtained and was
being sought to be brought on record.
9. According to the plaintiffs, in order to prove their case based upon
the nature of contentions and allegations made in the plaint, the said
documents become very much necessary to be brought on record and be
marked as exhibit or else the plaintiffs would be put to irreparable
damage and loss.
10. So far as I.A.No.2031 of 2024 is concerned, the contention of the
plaintiffs is that the document which is being sought to be marked is a
certified copy of the suit and the written statement filed in O.S.No.438 of
2015 and the said suit was one which was filed by defendant No.2
seeking cancellation of the sale deed as null and void against the
deceased plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 herein.
11. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on
perusal of records, what is necessary at this juncture is to take note of the
fact that the substantive suit O.S.No.231 of 2015 filed by the plaintiffs is
for declaring the sale deed dated 23.01.2014 executed by defendant No.2
in favour of defendant No.3 to be null and void. The sale deed dated
22.10.2013 pertains to the same property which is alleged to have been
executed by defendant No.1 projecting himself as plaintiff No.1 and has
sold the property fraudulently to defendant No.2. The sale deed dated
22.10.2013 is one which is said to have been executed on the basis of the
driving license which is sought to be marked by recalling PW.1. Since
the sale deeds dated 22.10.2013 and 23.01.2014 pertain to the same suit
schedule property, it cannot be said to be unconnected.
12. In the teeth of the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, the
impugned order dated 17.03.2025, passed by the Trial Court in
I.A.No.2012 of 2024, cannot be said to be either a perverse finding or a
finding contrary to the materials available on record.
13. So far as I.A.Nos.2030 & 2031 of 2024 are concerned, the suit
O.S.No.438 of 2015 finally stood dismissed for want of prosecution. The
plaintiffs now wants to bring on record the details of the said suit and the
stand taken in the said suit, both in plaint as also in Written Statement is
to substantiate their contentions and prove their case. Since the property
involved in the said suit and the parties to the dispute, coupled with the
alleged fraudulent act played by defendant No.1 in the course of selling
the property to defendant No.2 are all interconnected to each other, if the
Trial Court has allowed taking on record the said documents, the same
cannot be said to be in any manner a perverse finding or contrary to the
materials on record.
14. In the teeth of the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, the
impugned order dated 17.03.2025, passed by the Trial Court in
I.A.Nos.2030 & 2031 of 2024 also cannot be said to be either a perverse
finding or a finding contrary to the materials available on record. The
Civil Revision Petition Nos.3882 & 4117 of 2025 also deserves to be and
are accordingly rejected.
15. In the result, the three Civil Revision Petitions stands rejected.
16. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand
closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
Date: 02.04.2026
GSD
