Telangana High Court
M/S. Nadella Estates Ltd vs G. Chandraprakash Reddy on 18 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.946 of 2025
18th DAY OF MARCH, 2026
Between:
M/s.Nadella Estates Limited.
...Petitioner
AND
G. Chandraprakash Reddy and another.
...Respondents
ORDER:
Heard Sri S. Ram Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Mallu Nethan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the entire record.
2. The Civil Revision petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant aggrieved by the order dated 24.02.2025 in I.A.No. 1575 of 2024 in O.S. No.158 of 2009 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy ('trial Court'), wherein a petition filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC, to receive the documents has been allowed by receiving the documents subject to proof and relevancy.
RY,J CRP_946_2025 Background of facts:
3. The respondents in their affidavit pleaded that the main suit is filed for perpetual injunction and demarcation of boundaries of suit schedule A and B plots. The said plots No.44 and 60 each admeasuring 500 square yards and plot No.61 admeasuring 800 square yards in Sy.No.170 situated at Kollur Village. The plots were purchased under registered sale deeds. Plaintiff No.2/respondent No.2 purchased plot No.45 admeasuring 500 square yards in Sy.No.170 of Kollur Village under a registered sale deed. The evidence affidavits of the respondents have been filed and marked as Exs.A-1 to A-34. A photostatcopy of layout plan, which is filed along with plaint was not marked as photostat copies cannot be marked and originals are required. The respondents obtained certified copies of the layout plan from Gram Panchayat Kollur, which is presently Tellapur Municipality, covered under HMDA limits. Based on application dated 18.11.2024, HMDA issued approved layout plan and also issued inspection note. Previously, the respondents have filed I.A.No.1388 of 2024, but the same was dismissed, as documents were stamped but not properly attested. The respondents have submitted applications to the Metropolitan Commissioner on 22.11.2024 and under Right to Information Act, 2005('RTI Act') to furnish the certified copies of layout copy, photos of site, inspection report 2 RY,J CRP_946_2025 of the site and note file of the proceedings vide File Nos.14424/HMDA/PLG/2008 dated 23.04.2011, 14423/HMDA/PLG/ 2008 dated 25.04.2011, 1422/HMDA.PLG/2008 dated 16.04.2011 and File No.14420/HMDA/PLG/2008 of plot Nos.44, 45, 60 and 61 in Sy.No.170 of Kollur Village. The authorities furnished the true copies, which are 8 in number. The said documents which are received under RTI are submitted along with the affidavit for being received and marked as exhibits. The said documents are crucial to support the case of respondents.
4. The petitioner herein opposed the petition filed for receiving documents on behalf of the respondents by filing written counter alleging that said documents do not contain signature of issuing authority, but it contains attestation by the Standing Counsel of Railways Secunderabad. I.A.No.1536 of 2024 filed to receive the documents, but said documents did not contain the signature of issuing authority on the layout copy. The respondents had taken back the documents by filing an application under Order XIII Rule 7(2) of CPC in I.A.No.1567 of 2024. The layout map sought to be filed in the Court is not sanctioned by HMDA or any other authority. The documents were obtained by the respondents by making an application under RTI Act for supply of Land Regularization Scheme application, document of layout copy, photos of site, inspection report and 3 RY,J CRP_946_2025 note file. The said documents were furnished subject to payment of the amount required for issuing certified copies. The order shows that the road affected area is 215.28 square yards and net area is 284.72 square yards. As per the proceedings issued, there are onsite drainage lines, drinking water facilities and power lines. However, evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 shows that HMDA authorities did not inspect the site, but have been managed for obtaining the layout. It is alleged that Gram Panchayat layout will not be available with HMDA. In case, there is any sanction layout issued by Gram Panchayat, it should be available with Gram Panchayat, but it is not available with the Office of Gram Panchayat, Kollur. The affected area charges are refunded to the respondents before Land Regularization Scheme is issued, no site inspection was made and there was no lay-out. The true copy sought to be received does not contain the signature. The attestation is made by the Standing Counsel for Railways Secunderabad. The rubber stamp shows a true copy on the photocopy of the layout map. According to the petitioner, the respondents are playing fraud on the Court and therefore, the documents produced under RTI cannot be received.
5. The learned trial Court considered the respondents plea for receiving the documents consisting of true copies certified by HMDA. The trial Court also considered the objections raised by the petitioner about said 4 RY,J CRP_946_2025 documents not being obtained from proper authority and containing signatures of Divisional Accounts Officer and therefore, being forged documents. It is held that equal opportunity should be given to both the parties to arrive at a just conclusion. Further, mere receipt of document will not cause any prejudice to any of the sides as they will be marked subject to proof and relevancy. When true certified copies are issued by HMDA, they cannot be concluded to be fraudulent documents on the basis of mere allegation. Further, reference is made to the case of Mohd. Mahboob Ali Khan v. K. Adi Narayana1, wherein it is held that documents obtained under RTI Act are admissible and cannot be disputed. The veracity of the documents can be elicited during cross-examination and therefore, held that the documents filed along with the petition can be received subject to proof and relevancy. Aggrieved by said order, the present revision has been filed. Grounds of revision:
6. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the trial Court failed to consider the fact that this Court had set aside the previous order dated 30.09.2024 in I.A.No.1091 of 2024, wherein the trial Court permitted the respondents to mark the layout copy, on account of delay in submission of the document and not on the ground of authenticity. I.A.No.1387 of 2024 1 C.R.P.No.1933 of 2021, dated 20.07.2022.
5
RY,J CRP_946_2025 was filed with the same prayer as in I.A.No.1575 of 2024 (I.A. under revision), which was dismissed as withdrawn, and therefore, according to the petitioner, the application in I.A.No.1575 of 2024, which is under revision, is hit by res judicata. The petitioner pleaded that the layout allegedly certified by HMDA contains a rubber stamp of the Standing Council of Railways and shows the same as a photocopy which was filed through I.A.No.1388 of 2024 and I.A.No.1536 of 2024. The petitioner pleaded that the Accounts Officer is not competent to issue certified layout, drawings and designs. According to the petitioner, the documents sought to be received were allowed on the ground that the documents issued under RTI Act are true copies. But there is failure to consider the delay in filing the lay-out. It is stated that there is failure to consider the petitioner's plea about non-conversion of the land and issuance of sanctioned layout. Further, reference is made about misplacement of original copies. The petitioner pleaded that the property in question was never developed as a layout physically. The layout does not contain any signature of any person. The suit schedule property is agricultural land which is not converted. The petitioner is in possession of the property since the year 2002 and it was developed into residential layout. While so, the respondents claim to have purchased the plots in the year 2006 without any records. The petitioner contends that the trial Court had given credence to the respondents' claims 6 RY,J CRP_946_2025 on the basis of unverified documents that do not meet the necessary evidentiary standards, as such prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
7. The respondents filed counter alleging that the document filed earlier did not contain the signature of the issuing authority and therefore, said document was rejected. Currently, the document filed contained the signature of the issuing authority. There was delay in filing the layout as the respondents made application before Kollur Municipality and they have replied stating that there is no material available. Thereafter, after thorough research, the respondents made application before HMDA and obtained the certified copies of the layout and other documents. With respect to order in C.R.P.No.3763 of 2024, it is alleged that the photostat copy of layout was not rejected on the ground of delay, but was rejected on the ground that the layout did not meet the criteria to be marked as a document under secondary evidence. Further, the petitions in I.A.No.1386 and 1387 of 2024 were dismissed on the ground that there was no signature of the authority except for bare stamps and therefore, the second application is not barred by res judicata. Referring to the allegation about forgery and fabrication of documents, it is submitted that such a plea is not substantiated. Only since the documents were not available with Kollur Gram Panchayat and Kollur Municipality, there was delay in obtaining the certified copies. The 7 RY,J CRP_946_2025 petitioner objected to only the marking of layout without taking any objection to the remaining documents i.e. note file proceedings, chalans, inspection reports etc. issued under RTI Act by HMDA. In any case, the documents were marked subject to proof and relevancy and therefore, there is opportunity for the petitioner to lead rebuttal evidence. As such it is pleaded that there are no merits in the present revision. Contentions of the petitioner:
8. During arguments, the learned counsel for petitioner emphasized that the respondents herein have repeatedly produced the layout plan once without signatures and filed applications to receive the said documents, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, another set of layout plan was filed and the same was received. When it was challenged before this Court, this Court in C.R.P.No.3763 of 2024 has set aside the order passed by the trial Court on account of producing the layout plan with delay. Thereafter, again the respondents have come up with the petition under revision with the same prayer to receive the layout plan along with other documents. It is argued that no reason is stated for producing the layout plan with delay when the suit itself was filed in the year 2009 and the document is produced in the year 2025. Further, several suspicious or controversial circumstances surrounding the plaintiffs' claim are cited to 8 RY,J CRP_946_2025 contend that the documents produced by the respondents are forged and fabricated documents which cannot be received in evidence. A reference is made to the layout plans produced at various stages, containing rubber stamp with no signature or containing a rubber stamp of Accounting Officer with a signature and layout without any kind of authentication from any of the attesting officers. It is pleaded that the respondents are producing a layout with different anomalies each time without meeting the requirements of marking document as an exhibit.
Contentions of the respondents:-
9. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents argued that there is limited scope for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution and said jurisdiction can be exercised only when there is a procedural irregularity committed by the Court which is subordinate to the High Court. In that context, reference is made to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi 2 wherein it is held that well-recognized principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to ensure that all subordinate Courts as well as statutory and quasi- 2 (2010) 9 SCC 385 9 RY,J CRP_946_2025 judicial Tribunals exercise the powers vested in them within the bounds of their authority.
10. Further, reliance is placed in the case of Ahmed Ali Khan v. Tayab Khatoon 3, wherein it is held by this Court that interference under Article 227 of the Constitution can be made if order passed by the Court having no jurisdiction, it suffers from palpable procedural impropriety or a patent illegality. By placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment, it was argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that it was well within the jurisdiction of the trial Court to permit the respondents to submit documents subsequent to commencement of trial, there is no procedural irregularity or palpable patent error that warrants interference.
11. Further, learned Senior Counsel for respondents relied upon judgment in the case of Dhanpat v. Sheo Ram 4 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that all the objections raised with respect to the documents exhibited can be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. Whenever objections are raised during evidence-taking stage regarding admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence, the trial Court can make note of such objection and decide it after the arguments are concluded at the time of delivering judgment. it is argued that all the 3 C.R.P.Nos.1391 of 2024 and batch, dated 16.07.2024. 4 (2020) 16 SCC 209 10 RY,J CRP_946_2025 objections raised by the petitioner can be considered by the trial Court at the time of final arguments before delivering judgment, as the documents were permitted to be marked subject to proof and relevancy.
12. With respect to the delay in filing the layout the learned Senior Counsel for respondents relied upon the case between GPR Housing Private Limited v. C. Prithvi Raj Reddy 5, wherein it is held that Order XVII Rule 14 of CPC permits the plaintiff to submit all the documents at the time of filing of the suit i.e. when the plaint is presented. Sub-Rule 3 grants leave to file the documents with the leave of the Court for convincing reasons. There can be no hard and fast rule for the Court to exercise discretion while granting leave under sub-Rule 3 of Rule 14 of Order VII of CPC. Further, mere delay cannot itself constitute a ground for rejecting the leave. The ultimate goal or the endeavour of a Court must always be to decide the real controversy in issue.
13. On the basis of aforementioned judgment, it is argued that mere delay cannot be a reason to reject the document showing existence of sanctioned layout. As per reasons for delay in producing the layout, it is submitted that the respondents initially approached Kollur Gram Panchayat for certified copy, but the said Gram Panchayat replied stating that it does 5 MANU/AP/1000/2014 11 RY,J CRP_946_2025 not have any such record. Then, the respondents have taken up thorough research and have found that on account of Kollur Gram Panchayat merging in HMDA, the entire documents pertaining to said Gram Panchayat have been transmitted to HMDA's Office. Therefore, an application is made before the HMDA and the present certified true copies have been obtained and in this process there was delay. There was never any lapse on the part of the respondents to produce relevant documents, but the aforementioned cause is the ground for delay, as such argued that delay cannot be held against the respondents to reject the layout and other documents.
14. Lastly, the learned Senior Counsel for respondents relied upon judgment in the case of Amar Singh v. Union of India 6, wherein there is an elaborate discussion about filing frivolous petitions by unscrupulous litigants, where the motive is to deceive and mislead the Courts. In said case, there is a reference to the principles of jurisprudence that the litigants must observe with respect to pleadings. It is held that a party approaching the Court must do so with clean hands, whereas there is a new creed of litigants, who resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals.
6 (2011) 7 SCC 69 12 RY,J CRP_946_2025 Findings of the Court:
15. First and foremost point to be considered is whether there is any exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court, which is impermissible or not contemplated under CPC. The power to exercise discretion under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC is something which is within the discretion of the trial Court to be exercised. In normal course, a litigant approaching a Court while filing the suit is expected to file all the supporting documents. For whatever reason, in case there is failure to submit all the documents at the time of presentation of the suit, the party can always seek leave of the Court under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of CPC to receive such documents at a later stage. The Court, in its discretion, may consider the reasons cited for such presentation of documents at a later stage and permit the party to mark such documents as exhibits. To this extent there is no irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court in exercising power under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of CPC.
16. The next point to be considered is whether there was any improper exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court in the wake of the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.3763 of 2024. It is a point to be noted that the respondents herein have produced the layout copy to be received in the form of secondary evidence. The said petition was allowed and when the 13 RY,J CRP_946_2025 petitioner herein challenged the same by way of revision before this Court, the revision was allowed on the premise that the document in question did not meet the requirements of a document under secondary evidence. That being the case, when the current document is produced according to the petitioner, the I.A.No.1575 of 2024 in O.S.No.158 of 2009 is hit by res judicata. This contention is unsustainable given the fact that the current layout produced by the respondents is obtained by filing an application under RTI Act and a certified true copy is produced before the Court for being received as secondary evidence. The current document according to the trial Court meets the requirements of a document to be received as secondary evidence. It contains the signature of the authority which issued the same and it is received from the concerned department under RTI Act.
17. In the circumstances, the document produced in I.A.No.1575 of 2024 is not comparable to the document produced by the respondents under I.A.No.1386 and 1387 of 2024. In that context, on account of the qualitative difference in the nature of document produced, the principle of res judicata is not applicable.
18. Now, coming to the aspect of delay in producing the layout i.e., the suit itself is filed in the year 2009, but the certified true copy of the layout which is very, very crucial for proving the plaint respondents' case is 14 RY,J CRP_946_2025 produced in the year 2025. However, said delay in itself cannot be a ground for rejecting the document as per the judgment of this Court in the case of GPR Housing Private Limited (supra). The trial Court in its discretion to address the real controversy in issue may always receive a document filed by the party at a later stage for justifiable reasons.
19. In the instant case, the respondents submit that there was a constant effort made to produce the layout. However, obstacles were faced on account of the fact that the Kollur Gram Panchayat itself had expressed inability to issue a layout as no such information was available. Subsequently, after many efforts and much research the respondents were able to figure out that Kollur Gram Panchayat merged with HMDA and therefore, the HMDA department is the place where the layout issued by the Gram Panchayat can be found. Only then under RTI Act, an application was made to HMDA and it is at that stage the respondents were able to secure a true copy of the layout that is sought to be marked. This explanation does constitute sufficient cause for delay. Therefore, delay in itself need not be held against the respondents for marking of the layout.
20. Last but not least, there are serious allegations made by the petitioner about the genuineness of the documents produced. There is a categorical pleading to the effect that the documents produced are not authentic 15 RY,J CRP_946_2025 documents as the layout contains the rubber stamp of an Accounting Officer and that said Officer is not the competent authority to issue the layout. Further, there is an allegation that there is no signature on the certified true copy, which is factually incorrect, as a bare perusal of the certified true copy shows the signature of the Accounting Officer. The genuineness of the layout itself can be considered at the time of delivering judgment, as per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Danpat (supra). At this stage, it is not possible for the trial Court to give any finding about the genuineness of the layout produced as being a forged document or a genuine document. Only after evidence of both the parties is adduced and oral evidence is recorded, any decision can be made about the objections raised by the respective parties. In the circumstances, this Court does not see any infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial Court and there are no grounds for interference.
21. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 24.02.2025 passed in I.A.No.1575 of 2024 in O.S.No.158 of 2009 by the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________ RENUKA YARA, J Date: 18.03.2026 GVR 16