BHAVSING Vs. NAMRATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, challenging the orders dtd. 27/3/2024 passed in I.A.Nos.69, 70 and 71 of 2024 in O.S.No.19 of 2010 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit vide O.S.No.19 of 2010 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, at Vikarabad, seeking declaration of title and consequential injunction against the respondents/defendants in respect of land admeasuring Ac.5-00 gts in Sy.No.237 situated at Pudur Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (now Vikarabad District). While the said suit is at the stage of arguments, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.69 of 2024 under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC seeking to receive the documents i.e, certified copies of registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.2206/2019, 2648/2019 and 2649/2019, all dtd. 13/5/2019 on record; I.A.No.70 of 2024 under Sec. 151 of CPC seeking to reopen the evidence of PW.1 for further marking of documents and I.A.No.71 of 2024 to recall the evidence of PW.1 for further marking of documents. The trial Court vide separate orders dtd. 27/3/2024 dismissed the said applications. Challenging the same, the present revisions are filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Sy.No.237 in Pudur Village, originally numbered as Sy.No.390 was a Government land admeasuring about Ac.40-00 gts and the same was assigned to about 8 individuals, wherein the petitioner No.1/plaintiff No.1 was assigned land to an extent of Ac.5.00 gts in Sy.No.390 (now Sy.No.237), vide Proceedings No. D1/309/62. It is stated that the Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land Records, Vikarabad, conducted survey of the said land and demarcated with specific boundaries on 17/11/2006. It is submitted that when the respondents/defendants tried to encroach the property belonging to the petitioners, under the guise of interim order passed in O.S.No.51 of 2007 for lands in Sy.Nos.235/1 and 235/2, the subject suit vide O.S.No.19 of 2010 was filed seeking declaration of title and consequential injunction. It is further submitted that the respondents/defendants filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and claimed that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 were the owners of lands in Sy.Nos.235/1 and 235/2 which were assigned to them along with some other patta lands of the defendant No.3. Pending trial, the defendant No.3 sold lands in Sy.Nos.145, 235 and 236 under registered sale deeds wherein the southern portion of the property is shown as Sy.No.237. It is submitted that during the cross-examination of DW.1, when a suggestion was put to him with regard to execution of registered sale deeds vide document Nos.2206/2019, 2648/2019 and 2649/2019, all dtd. 13/5/2019 by his father, he denied the same and stated that he does not know whether Survey No.237 is situated at Pudur Village and he also does not know whether in the Sale Deed executed by defendant No.3 in favour of Nabeel Hussain in respect of land in Survey No.236, the Southern boundary is mentioned as land in Survey No.237. It is contended that the application filed by the petitioners seeking to receive certified copies of the said registered sale deeds, was erroneously dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the said documents do not pertain to the suit property and that the defendant No.1 had pleaded ignorance of the said documents executed by defendant No.3. It is submitted that the purpose of bringing the documents on record was to show that as per the defendants documents itself Sy.No.237 is existing and defendant No.3 had executed the sale deeds showing Sy.No.237 as the southern boundary but the trial Court without considering the said facts, erroneously dismissed the subject applications. Thus the learned counsel prayed this Court to set aside the impugned orders and allow the present Civil Revision Petitions as prayed for. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied on the decisions in Subash Chander vs. Bhagwan Yadav, and Bada Bodaiah vs. Bada Lingaswamy,2002 Law Suit (AP) 986.