Telangana High Court
CRP/3960/2024 of G. Narsing Rao Vs Nitin Hiras on 23 February 2026
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA // AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO CIVIL REVI SION PETITION NO: 3960 OF 2024 Between: Petition under Anide 227 of the Constitution of lndia, Aggrieved by
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA // AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
CIVIL REVI SION PETITION NO: 3960 OF 2024
Between:
Petition under Anide 227 of the Constitution of lndia, Aggrieved by the Docket order dared 14t11r2024 made in r.A-No.1 144 of 2o24 in o.s.No..r049 of 2022 (old oS No.1 147 of 2oi8) on the fire of the prr. senior civit iuolJ, Medchal -Malkajgiri District, Kushaiguda.
Q, Nqrging Rao. Wo Late G.yellaiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ- Business, F/q, t:t No. 37-93/366, Madhuranagai noio-r.ro.O,'-riereomet i noijj Malkajgiri Mandat, tvledchat Matkajgiri _tOOOa7. -
...petitioner/Defendent
Nitin Hiras, S/o Dasarath Hirrr, nflJrOout 50 years, occ- privte Job, R/o B- 65, Prakruthuni Nivas, Annaram post, Sangareddy District _ 502313.
...RespondenUplaintiff
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated h the affidavit fired in support of the petitio;, ihe High court may oe pteaslJ- to Grant stay of all further proceedings in o.s 1049 oi zozz on the file of the pri Senior Civil Judge, Medchat Maliajgiri, Kushaiguda pending disposal of the C,R.P.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. V V RAMANA
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr K RAMACHANDRA
The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
23'd Febn;.ary, 2o26
CTVIL REVISION PETITION No.3960 0F 2024
Between:
G. Narsing Rao
...Petitioner
AND
Nitin [{ r ra s
...Respondent
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order datecl l4.I\.2024 in I.A.No.ll44 of 2024 in O.S.No. 1049 of 2022 ott the hle of the Principal Senior Civii Judge, Medcha.l- Malka3giri District, Kushaiguda.
2. l]card Sri V.V.Ramana, learned counsel lor the petitioncr :rnd Sri K.Ramachandra, learned counsel for the responclent
3. Lcarnerl counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the defendant in the above suit and respondent hled thc said suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.S,OO,OOO/- together with interest at l2oh per annum based on the promissory note dated 22.10.2016 allegedly executed by the petitioner. The petitioner frled written statement denying the a,llegations and contentions of the respondent and contended that there were several transactions between the petitioner, L.Nageshwar Rao and M.Uday Bhaskar Rao
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent was examined as PWl and L. Nageshwar Rao and M.Uday Bhaskar were examined as P.W.s 2 and 3, who are claimed to be scribe and attesting witness to the promissory note (Ex.A1) ald respondent's wile was examined as PW4. At that stage, the petitioner hled I.A.No.ll44 of 2024 to receive certilied copies of documents obtained from various Courts, wherein the petitioner as well as the witnesses were parties; to prove the contentions taken in the written statement.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner never saw nor met the respondent at any time ancl lor the first tirne he came to know about the respondent thror-rghtheatlor,csuitonly.Infact,thepetitionerhadseveral transactions i.n,ith both the attesting witnesses 1.€., L.NageshwarRarlandM.UdayBhaskarRao,whoarebasically real estate including s both o[ thenr. h e \tras asked to execute severa] blank documents including blank promissory notes al1d blank stamppapers.sinceallthethreei'e',thepetitionerandthe said L.Nageshu'ar Rao and M'Uday Bhaskar Rao are quite closc, such documents werc executed on good faith and beiief' Obviously, the saicl persons have made use of one such blank promissory note to file the present suit' As such' the petitior-rer filed the above i.A., to receive the petition mentioned docurnents u,hich are necessary to prove the contention of the petilioner, bur the trial court dismissed the said I.A., holding that the said documents are not relevant to the present case' Accordingll', prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition' agents. In connection with severa'l transactions ale transactions entered into by this petitioner with \:--:"""..:
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there are contradictory statements in the written statement and the affidavit hled in support ol the I.A., stating that the documents have been mixed up with other concerned proceedings between the petitioner and the respondent and the same is contrary to the written statement.
7. A perusal of the record shows that though some of the documents mentioned in the petition are not relevant to the case on hand. The documents namely (i) document in O.S.No.l2l of 2Ol7 between L. Nageshwar Rao and the petitioner, (ii) the document i.e., Crime No.496 of 2018 on the file of P.S. Neredmet which was hled by L. Nageshwar Rao against the petitioner and (iii) the document i.e., the written statement in O.S.No.6ll of 2Ol7 between P. Laxmi and L Nageshwar Rao, and the written statement in O.S.No.2640 of 2018 between P. Mallatha and L. Nageshwar Rao seems to be relevant. Thus, the trial court is directed to receive the said documents in evidence and proceed further. {
8. Accordingly, the present Civii Revision Petition is partly aliou,ed and the tnal Court is directed to dispose of the main suit as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs As a sequel, miscellaneous appiications pending, il any, in this Petition, shall stand ciosed. Sd/- A.SREENIVAS REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, The Prl. Senior Civrl Judge, Medchal -Malkajgiri District' Kushaiguda 2 One CC to Mr V V RAIMANA. Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to lvlr K RAMACHANDRA, Advocate [OPUC]
4. Two CD Copies I(C/BA
b:
HIGH COURT DATED: 23tOZt2O26
ORDER
CRP.No.3960 of 2024 \)RlHE S € i[ ruri ){p6 * a, ou t PARTLY ALLOWED CIVIL REVISION PETITION K_s t613lz e