Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Burra Venkatswamy Goud And Others vs The District Collector, Ranga Reddy ... on 27 September, 2012
Author: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
Bench: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Civil Revision Petition No.1670 of 2012
27.09.2012
Burra Venkatswamy Goud and others
The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad and
others
^Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri C.Hanumantha Rao
!Counsel for the respondent: ---
<Gist:
>Head note:
?Cases referred:
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This civil revision petition is filed against order, dated 03.02.2012, in I.A.No.704 of 2011 in O.S.No.326 of 2008, on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar. The petitioners filed the above-mentioned suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. During the trial, the respondents filed I.A.No.704 of 2011 for receiving certain documents as enclosed in the list accompanying to the said application. Even though the petitioners have filed a counter affidavit, they were not represented at the hearing. The lower Court has allowed the said IA subject to determination of the genuineness or otherwise of the documents and their proof of relevancy in the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed the present civil revision petition. At the hearing, Sri C.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the documents which constitute the purported revenue record were brought into existence illegally by the Tahasildar and that they are diametrically contrary to the sesaala pahani maintained by the revenue department, the certified copy of which was filed by the petitioners in the pending the suit.
While allowing with the application of the respondents, the lower Court has made it specifically clear that admission of the documents is subject to proof of their genuineness and relevancy. It is not in dispute that the documents which were proposed to be filed by the respondents were purported official record. If such record is found to be contradictory to any other official record, the petitioners are entitled to raise this issue in the suit and request the Court below not to rely upon such documents. It is too premature for the petitioners to raise an issue relating to the acceptability or otherwise of the documents at this stage. While admissibility of the documents is one thing, their acceptability while adjudicating the respective rights of the parties is quite another thing. Mere admission of the documents would not amount to the Court accepting the version of the propounders of the documents. As the lower Court has secured the interests of the petitioners by admitting the documents subject to their genuineness, proof and relevancy, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower Court.
The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed subject to the above observations.
As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.2232 of 2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th September, 2012