-
by Admin
14 December 2025 5:24 PM
“A document created years after the suit began cannot be magically inserted into the trial record when it wasn’t even in existence at the time of filing — it’s not just inadmissible, it’s irrelevant.” - In a firm order Telangana High Court dismissed three civil revision petitions filed by the legal heirs of Bhavsing, who sought to reopen evidence in a land title suit from 2010 by introducing certified copies of sale deeds dated 2019. Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy ruled that allowing such documents at the final argument stage would distort the original scope of the litigation, which related specifically to land in Survey No.237 in Pudur Village, not to sale deeds executed nearly a decade later.
The Court upheld the trial court’s decision rejecting the plaintiffs’ plea to recall PW1 for marking the new documents and clarified: “Documents which did not exist at the time of filing the suit cannot form the basis of evidence unless they directly relate to facts in issue — here, they do not.”
“Just Because Defendant Denied Knowledge Doesn’t Mean You Get to Introduce New Sale Deeds During Final Arguments”
The petitioners/plaintiffs had moved three interlocutory applications seeking permission to bring on record three sale deeds executed in 2019 — allegedly by Defendant No.3 — to argue that Survey No.237 was mentioned as a boundary in those transactions. Their purpose, they claimed, was to rebut the cross-examination denial by DW1, who had said he was unaware of any such documents.
But the Court ruled that a witness’s denial doesn’t create a new foundation for evidence that was never pleaded.
“DW1 was neither a party nor an attesting witness to the said sale deeds. His ignorance cannot be a ground to expand the evidentiary record, especially when the suit schedule and issues are already fixed.”
“Rule 14(3) of Order VII Allows Late Filing — But Only with Court’s Leave and Only If the Document Matters to the Case”
The Court examined the powers conferred under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC and explained the spirit of the 2002 amendment — which allows courts to permit filing of documents not originally attached to the plaint. But it stressed that: “This does not mean that post-dated documents, unrelated to the suit property, can be admitted to shift the axis of the case.”
It cited the lack of any specific pleadings or amendment request to incorporate these documents, and emphasized that: “You cannot, under the guise of rebuttal or clarification, insert evidence that alters the very boundaries of what was originally claimed.”
“Trial Is Not a Moving Target — Courts Must Stop Parties From Turning Suits Into Ever-Expanding Battles”
The Court criticized the petitioners for what it called an attempt to prolong proceedings. It said: “Documents executed in 2019 have no bearing on a suit filed in 2010 — this is clearly an afterthought intended to delay finality.”
Justice Bhaskar Reddy emphasized that judicial discretion under Order XIII and Order VII Rule 14(3) must be used sparingly and cautiously, especially at the closing stage of a 14-year-old suit.
“The trial court rightly found that these documents are irrelevant to the suit property and the issues framed — there is no illegality or infirmity in that finding.”
The Court concluded by dismissing all three revision petitions, refusing to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution, and observed: “What was not pleaded, what did not exist at the time of suit, and what has no direct relevance to the title dispute cannot now be introduced as trial evidence.”
“Litigation must have an end — parties cannot be allowed to endlessly shift their case by digging out documents after a decade. These revision petitions are dismissed.”
Date of Decsion: April 2, 2025
