V. Gangadhar Goud v. V. Ramesh Goud And Another

[ 31681 ,

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1803 OF 2022 Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia, againsUaggrieved by the order dated 17lOGl2O22, in l.A. No. 17712019 in O.S. No. 5912015 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, at Atmakur.

Between:

1. V. Gangadhar Goud, S/o. V. Seetharam Goud,.aged about 74 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H. No. 2-94, Atmakur village and Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

...PETITIONERYRESPONDENT AND

1. V. Ramesh Goud, S/o. Late Balram Goud aged about 64 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Undyala village, Chinna Chinthakunta Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

2. V. Pruthvi Goud, S/o. Late Balram Goud aged about 60 years, Occ. Agrl. And Business, Fl/o. Undyala village, Chinna Chinthakunta Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS tA NO: 't OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in the suit including the further trial of the suit in O.S. No. 59i2015 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur, pending disposal of main revision.

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M. DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER

THIi HONOURABLE SRI.JUSTICE K.LAXMAN CIV].L REVISION PETITION.NO.1803 OF 2022 ORDDR Heard Sri M.Damoar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondents.

2.

Perusal of record would reveal that the respondents/ plaintiffs have filed a suit vide O.S.No.59 of 2015 to restrain the petitioner/defendant from interfering with the possession of respondents/ plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

3.

During the pendency of the said suit, the respondents herein have filed an application vide I.A.No. 177 of 2Ol9 seeking to receive a document i.e. unregistered partnership deed dated 15.12.1969. The petitioner/defendant has opposed the said application on the ground that the said document sought to be filed by the respondents is an unregistered document. However, vide order dated 17.O6.2022 the learned .Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur, allowed the said li application subject to proof and relevancy. Challenging the said order, the petitioner herein had hled the present Civil Revision il petition.

il //\\

4.

Sri.M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the fatJrer of the respondents has hled a suit vide O.S.No.20 of 1983 seeking perpetual injunction and in the said suit also he sought to file the additional document, but the Court below has taken objection that it was not retained. Subsequently, the said suit was dismissed but the Court below has received the said document subject to proof and relevancy. He further submits that since the said document is not a registered document, it cannot be received and marked. 5.

It is relevant to note that for the purpose of receiving a particular document, registration is not compulsory but for marking of the said document, registration is compulsory. Therefore, though learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant herein opposed the said application i.e., I.A.No.177 of 2Ol9 saying that it is not a registered document and it is not impounded, the Court below has allowed the said application subject to proof and relevancy. 6.

The Court below rightly held that the objection with rega-rd to the registration and impounding of document has to be taken at the time of marking of that particular document. Therefore, according to this Court the impugned order is reasoned order and does not require interference of this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of Constitution of

/ India. The suit is of the year 2015 and notices are waived on .i respondent Nos. I and 2.

7.

In view of the above discussion, petitioner is granted liberty to raise all the objections including nonregistration of subject document and impounding of the same at the time of marking of the said document. As stated above, the II suit is pertaining to the year 2O15, therefore, learned Junior lr !r il Civil Judge, Atmakur shall dispose of the said suit in accordance $,ith law within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

8.

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

SD/. T. SRINIVAS DEPUW REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY// secnolrrrcen To, l 'l . The Junior Civil Judge, a Atmakur

2. One CC to M/s t\4. DAMODAR REDDY' Advocate [OPUC]

3. Two CD CoPies

4. One SPare CoPY BN AA0"

HIGH COURT DATED:2610812022 -!{J (A ffi L Y a 7* s <) ,') Y19ORDER CRP.No.1803 ot 2022 r DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION AT THE ADMISSION STAGE Q"tK,