Telangana High Court
Nandala Laxminandam vs Chettipalli Rama Devi on 8 July, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2114 and 1544 of 2025 COMMON ORDER:
Heard Sri R. Lakshmi Narsimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Srinivasa Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.
2. C.R.P.No.2114 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff challenging the order dated 09.04.2025 in I.A.No.36 of 2025 in O.S.No.158 of 2012 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, at Karimnagar.
3. Likewise, petitioner/plaintiff filed C.R.P.No.1544 of 2025 challenging the order dated 09.04.2025 in I.A.No.12 of 2025 in O.S.No.158 of 2012 by the very same Court.
4. Petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.158 of 2012 against the respondents/defendants seeking declaration of title; to declare the registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing document No.1941 of 1997, dated 29.03.1997 and sale deed bearing document No.2420 of 2012, dated 19.04.2012 as null and void. In the said Suit, the plaintiff had filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil 2 Procedure, 1908 to appoint Advocate Commissioner and the same was dismissed by the learned trial Court. Therefore, he has filed a revision and this Court disposed of the said revision directing the trial Court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. In compliance with the said order, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he has filed his report. Without considering the objections filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, the learned trial Court accepted the said report. Therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff filed one more Interlocutory Application in Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C to appoint 2nd Advocate Commissioner and the said application was also dismissed. Petitioner filed a revision before this Court and the same was allowed directing the learned trial Court to appoint 2nd Advocate Commissioner. In compliance with the said order, 2nd Advocate Commissioner was appointed.
5. In the said suit, the petitioner/plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and also examined the independent witnesses as PW.2. Thereafter, his evidence was closed. He has filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A.No.299 of 2023 in O.S.No.158 of 2012 under Section 151 of C.P.C to reopen 3 the said suit for further evidence and the said application was dismissed on 06.06.2023. Challenging the said order, the petitioner herein has filed a revision vide C.R.P.No.2855 of 2023 and vide order dated 14.11.2023, this Court allowed the said C.R.P setting aside the order dated 04.07.2023 in I.A.No.299 of 2023, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- to the District Legal Services Authority, Karimnagar. This Court also directed the plaintiff to conclude the evidence within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. This Court also directed both the parties to cooperate with the trial Court in disposal of the said suit, since it is of the year 2012.
6. Petitioner had filed another revision vide C.R.P.No.2000 of 2024 stating that instead of posting the matter for further evidence of plaintiff, the trial Court has posted the matter for defendants' evidence on 12.03.2024. On consideration of the said facts, vide order dated 11.07.2024, this Court disposed of the said revision directing the learned trial Court to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to examine three more witnesses i.e., PWs.3 to 5 first and then record the defendants' evidence including cross-examination of DW.3. This Court also directed 4 the petitioner/plaintiff to cooperate with the trial Court in disposal of the suit i.e., O.S.No.158 of 2012, in terms of the order dated 14.11.2023 in C.R.P.No.2855 of 2023. This Court also observed that the same is the 4th C.R.P. filed before this Court by the petitioner/plaintiff. Therefore, this Court directed the trial Court to make an endeavor to dispose of the suit in accordance with law by conducting proceedings on day to day basis.
7. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A.No.12 of 2025 under Section 151 of C.P.C. to reopen the case for the purpose of sending Ex.B.1 and Ex.A.21 and Vakalathnama of the petitioner/plaintiff for comparison of signatures and thumb impressions and also filed I.A.No.36 of 2025 under Rule 129 of the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Order, 1980 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C. to call for the records i.e., signatures and thumb impression register from the Joint Sub-registrar, Karimnagar, pertaining to the registered sale deed bearing document No.4124 of 1974, dated 06.12.1974 (Ex.A.21) and registered gift settlement deed bearing document No.1941 of 1997, dated 29.03.1997 (Ex.B1) on the following grounds: 5
"The said suit was posted for judgment. In the said suit, defendant No.1 filed original forged regd. gift settlement deed bearing document No.1941 of 1997, dated 29.03.1997, it was marked as Ex.B1, the said document was not executed by his father and petitioner has not attested as witness to the said document, his father has executed regd. sale deed document beairng No.4124 of 1974, dated 06.12.1974 during his lifetime, which is marked as Ex.A21. Therefore, it is essential to prove his claim to summon the Joint Sub-registrar, Karminagar to produce the office records i.e., thumb impressions register pertaining to the regd. sale deed bearing document No.1424 of 1974, dated 06.12.1974 from the Joint Sub- registrar, Karimnagar and to sent it for expert's opinion for comparison of signatures and thumb impressions of his deceased father (Nandala Pochalu)."
8. Respondents opposed the said application contending that the petitioner has been filing filed one after the other Interlocutory Applications, thereafter revisions to protract the litigation. He is not diligent. Despite granting ample opportunity by the learned trial Court as well as this Court, petitioner herein failed to utilise the same and he has filed the aforesaid applications without any basis.
6
9. Vide order dated 09.04.2025, the learned trial Court dismissed I.A.No.36 of 2025 holding that petitioner is not diligent in filing the aforesaid applications, and there is a delay in filing the said petitions. He has filed I.A.No.454 of 2022 to summon the Sub-Registrar, Karimnagar. The said application was dismissed on 29.11.2022 and the said order has attained finality. Instead of proceeding with the suit, the petitioner has filed I.A. after I.A. and also revision after revision.
10. Vide separate order dated 09.04.2025, the learned trial Court dismissed I.A.No.12 of 2025 holding that the plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1, marked Exs.A.1 to A.25 and he was also cross-examined at length. Defendant No.1 got examined herself as DW.1 and marked Exs.D.1 to D.6. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed several Interlocutory Applications and after the I.As were disposed of, the petitioner has filed Civil Revision Petitions before this Court. The learned trial Court also placed reliance on the order dated 11.07.2024 in C.R.P.No.2000 of 2024. Thus, according to the trial Court despite granting ample opportunity to the petitioner/plaintiff, he did not utilize the 7 same and filed the present applications without mentioning sufficient reasons. Challenging the said orders, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petitions.
11. Sri R. Lakshmi Narsimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the three grounds on which trial Court dismissed the Interlocutory Applications are contrary to record. Petitioner is always diligent. Order 29.11.2022 in I.A.No.454 of 2022 has not attained finality. Filing I.As and revisions is the right of the petitioner. Defendant No.2 did not file any written statement in the suit and filed counters in the aforesaid I.As. Defendant No.1 did not file counters in the said I.As. He has also placed reliance on the principle laid down by this Court in Waheeda Begum vs. Md.Yakub 1 and contended that the trial Court has to grant fair opportunity to him. Without considering the said aspect, the learned trial Court dismissed the aforesaid two applications, therefore, he sought to set aside the orders impugned in these Civil Revision Petitions. 1 2021 SCC OnLine TS 2227 8
12. Whereas, Sri S. Srinivasa Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that on considering all the grounds raised by both the plaintiff and defendants, the trial Court passed order dated 09.04.2025 dismissing I.A.Nos.12 and 36 of 2025. There is no error in it. Petitioner has been filing petition after petition and C.R.P after C.R.P. There is no error in the impugned orders. With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the present Civil Revision Petitions.
13. As discussed supra, the petitioner herein has filed the aforesaid suit seeking declaration of title and to declare the registered sale deed bearing document No.4124 of 1974, dated 06.12.1974 and registered gift settlement deed bearing document No.1941 of 1997, dated 29.03.1997 as null and void. He has filed the Interlocutory Applications seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner and also 2nd Advocate Commissioner. He has filed C.R.P.No.2855 of 2023, challenging the order passed by the learned trial Court in I.A.No.299 of 2023 filed by him to reopen the suit for further evidence. The said C.R.P. was disposed of and I.A.No.299 of 2023 was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-. 9
14. It is relevant to note that petitioner filed I.A.No.454 of 2022 under Order XVI Rule 6 read with Section 151 of C.P.C seeking to summon the Joint Sub-Registrar, Karimnagar, to produce the record pertaining to forged and fabricated registered gift deed bearing document No.1941 of 1997, dated 29.03.1997 and registered sale deed bearing document No.2420 of 2012 for the purpose of sending the said documents to compare the signatures. Vide order dated 29.11.2022, the learned trial Court dismissed the said application holding that as per the petition averments both the aforesaid documents are public documents as they are defined. If the documents are registered, they become public documents and the party in whose name the property registered, should possess those documents in original. If the documents are proposed to be summoned through Joint Sub- Registrar, Karimnagar, through which documents, the signatures are to be compared and also possession of the original documents. If the original documents are in the possession of respondents/defendants, there should be a procedure under the Indian Evidence Act for production of documents. Therefore, if the petitioner intends to summon the 10 documents, he has to file petition to summon the documents through defendants. Without taking steps, he has filed the said application after lapse of 10 years, that too at the stage of further evidence of plaintiff. He has not mentioned sufficient/proper reasons. There is no challenge to the said order. It attained finality. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner can't contend that it has not attained finality.
15. As discussed supra, the petitioner has filed a revision vide C.R.P.No.2000 of 2024 contending that instead of posting the suit for further evidence of plaintiff, the learned trial Court posted the said matter for the defendants' evidence on 12.03.2024. On considering the rival submission and order dated 14.11.2023 in C.R.P.No.2855 of 2023, this Court disposed of the said C.R.P directing the learned trial Court to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to examine three more witnesses i.e., PWs.3 to 5 first and then record the defendants' evidence including cross-examination of DW.3. This Court also directed both the parties to cooperate with the trial Court and also directed the trial Court to dispose of the said suit, as expeditiously as possible. Thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the aforesaid I.As. 11
16. As discussed supra, the aforesaid suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking for declaration of title and also to declare the gift settlement deed and registered sale deed as null and void, contending that defendant No.1 and her husband created gift settlement deed bearing document No.1941 of 1997, dated 29.03.1997 stealthy, while impersonating his father and forging his father's signatures. Therefore, he sought to declare the gift settlement deed bearing document No.1941 of 1997, dated 29.03.1997 and the sale deed bearing document No.2420 of 2012, dated 19.04.2012 as null and void. This Court granted ample opportunity to the petitioner herein to prove the said claim. He has also filed the aforesaid two I.As and two revisions to appoint 1st Advocate Commissioner and 2nd Advocate Commissioner. The same were allowed. This Court also allowed the other two C.R.Ps filed by him.
17. In compliance with the order dated 11.07.2024 in C.R.P.No.2000 of 2024, the learned trial Court has examined PW.3 - Joint Sub-Registrar, Karimnagar, PW.4 - Sub- Registrar, Karimnagar and PW.5 - 2nd Advocate Commissioner. The said depositions of PWs.3 to 5 were 12 recorded in the month of September, 2024. Ex.B.1 is the gift settlement deed and Ex.A.21 is the sale deed. Petitioner sought to declare the aforesaid two documents as null and void. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.12 of 2024 in the month of December, 2024 and I.A.No.36 of 2025 in the month of February, 2025 to reopen his evidence for the purpose of sending Ex.B.1 and Ex.A.21, his signatures on vakalathnama for comparison, etc., and to call for the records respectively in the manner stated above.
18. As discussed supra, the earlier application filed by the petitioner vide I.A.No.454 of 2022 with the same relief i.e., to summon the Joint Sub-Registrar, Karimnagar, and to produce the record pertains to forged and fabricated registered gift deed bearing document No.1941 of 1997, dated 29.03.1997 and registered sale deed bearing document No.2420 of 2012 was dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2022 on merits. Learned trial Court assigned specific reasons for dismissal of the said I.A. Without challenging the order dated 29.11.2022 in I.A.No.454 of 2022, the petitioner again filed I.A.No.36 of 2025 with the same relief. The matter was reopened twice. Ample opportunity was given to the 13 petitioner. He has not availed the said opportunity afforded by this Court and also by the learned trial Court. There is no dispute that the petitioner has filed several Interlocutory Applications. The said applications were dismissed on merits. He has filed revisions, the same were disposed of in the manner stated supra. He filed two I.As. to reopen his evidence and summon the documents. The relief sought in I.A.No.454 of 2022 and the relief sought in I.A.No.36 of 2025 is one and the same i.e., to summon the Joint Sub-Registrar, Karimnagar, and to produce the record pertains to forged and fabricated registered gift deed bearing document No.1941 of 1997, dated 29.03.1997 and registered sale deed bearing document No.2420 of 2012 for the purpose of sending the documents to compare the signatures. The earlier application i.e., I.A.No.454 of 2022 was dismissed on 29.11.2022 itself. Without challenging the said order, he has filed I.A.No.36 of 2025 with the same relief. On consideration of the said aspects only, learned trial Court dismissed both I.A.Nos.12 of 2025 and 36 of 2025.
19. It is relevant to note that the petitioner herein has filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the 14 respondents and three others for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 421, 424, 465, 506 and 468 read with Sections 34 and 109 of IPC. The same was referred to Choppadandi Police Station, who in turn, registered a case in Crime No.171 of 2013.The Investigating Officer has filed final report treating the same as civil in nature. Petitioner herein has filed protest petition. The said petition was dismissed by the learned trial Court. Challenging the same, petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition No.61 of 2016.
20. In the said revision, he filed an application vide Crl.M.P.No.474 of 2024 to send admitted thumb impressions and signatures of the aforesaid registered docuemtns executed by his father in favour of respondent No.1 to FSL, Hyderabad, for comparison of admitted and disputed thumb impressions and signatures by expert and opinion. Vide order dated 30.10.2024, learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, dismissed the said revision petition.
21. In the said order, there is mention about the petitioner filing Crl.M.P.No.81 of 2022 before the Revisional Court under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. seeking revisional Court to direct the 15 Sub-Registrar, Karimnagar, to produce office records of the aforesaid registered documents on the ground that the original signatures of the father of the petitioner were available in the said documents and to send the said documents to the expert for comparison of the signatures of the father. Revisional Court dismissed the said revision vide order dated 15.08.2022.
22. Challenging the said order, petitioner has filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. vide Crl.P.No.8318 of 2022. Vide order dated 10.06.2024, this Court disposed of the same directing the trial Court to call for the record by fixing the time, at the earliest. Revisional Court called for the records containing the thumb impressions and signatures with regard to registered sale deed bearing document No.4124 of 1974, dated 06.12.1974 executed by the petitioner's father in favour of Sripathi Rajamallu and thumb impressions and signatures register with regard to registered gift settlement deed bearing document No.1941 of 1997, dated 29.08.1997 executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent No.1. Revisional Court received thumb impression registers of Vol.No.83 of 1974 and Vol.No.178 of 1997 from the Office of the Sub-Registrar, 16 Karimnagar. After receiving those registers, petitioner herein filed petition under Section 39 BSA, 2023 (Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act) for comparison of thumb impressions and signatures of the executants available in thumb impression registers of Vol.No.83 of 1974 and Vol.No.178 of 1997 by Forensic Expert.
23. On consideration of the aforesaid facts and also law laid down by the Apex Court, learned revisional Court considered the aspect as to whether revisional Court has to order for further enquiry under Section 397 and 398 of Cr.P.C. by enquiring into Crl.M.P.No.474 of 2024 and to what extent authority can be exercised as revisional Court. Finally vide order dated 30.10.2024 revisional Court dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner confirming the order dated 14.09.2016 passed by the learned trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.1339 of 2015 in Crime No.171 of 2013, pending on the file of Choppadandi Police Station.
24. Petitioner filed a petition under Section 528 of BNSS challenging the said order vide Crl.P.No.16435 of 2024 and the same is pending. Petitioner suppressed the said facts in 17 the affidavits filed in I.A.No.36 of 2025 and I.A.No.12 of 2025 in O.S.No.158 of 2012.
25. The aforesaid suit is of the year 2012. Petitioner should be diligent while prosecuting his case. He can't file several I.As. for reopen and to summon the said records, and he can't file two I.As. with the same relief. It is relevant to note that the petitioner examined PW.3 - Joint Sub-Registrar, Karimnagar, PW.4 - Sub-Registrar, Karimnagar.
26. As discussed supra, On consideration of the aforesaid aspects, learned trial Court dismissed both the applications vide separate orders dated 09.04.2025. Both the orders are reasoned and well-founded. Petitioner herein failed to make out any ground to interfere with the said orders.
27. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the trial Court has posted the suit on 03.07.2025, on which date, he has filed a memo requesting the trial Court to adjourn the suit till disposal of the present revisions. But without considering the same and without even hearing the plaintiff, learned trial Court posted the suit for judgment to 24.07.2025. In proof of the same, he has filed 18 copy of the said memo and e-Courts proceedings of the said suit.
28. In the light of the same, learned trial Court is directed to hear both petitioner/plaintiff and respondents/defendants on 14.07.2025. Learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants shall proceed with the arguments and cooperate with the learned trial Court for disposal of the said suit without seeking adjournments.
29. With the above observations, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these C.R.Ps. shall stand closed.
___________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 08.07.2025 VSU/KRK/YNK Note: Issue C.C. by 10.07.2025 (B/O) VSU/KRK