1. Heard Sri Kusuri Satyanarayana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Ali Farooq, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri M.S.Prasad, leaned Senior Counsel representing Ms.A.Satyasiri, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 8.

2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the docket orders dated 04.09.2025 and 03.11.2025 passed in L.G.O.P.No.766 of 2017 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short ‘the Trial Court’), as arbitrary.

3. The Revision petitioners are the applicants in L.G.O.P.No.766 of 2017 filed to declare the respondents as land grabbers and to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the application schedule land to the applicants after removing the illegal constructions made therein and for mense profits.

4. During the pendency of the LGOP, I.A.No.1717 of 2025 was filed by respondent No.5, 16 to 19 seeking the learned Trial Court to receive the documents filed as per list in the LGOP.

5. The learned Trial Court, vide docket order dated 04.09.2025 recorded as hereunder:

               “Chief-affidavit of R.W.2 filed. For marking of documents and cross-examination of R.W.2, call on 16.09.2025.”

6. Subsequently, in the docket proceedings dated 03.11.2025, it was recorded as hereunder:

               “R.W.2 present. Exs.B21 to B60 are marked. For Cross of RW2, Sri S.Satyanarayana, Advocate, is appointed as Advocate Commissioner to record the cross-examination of R.W.2 and file report by 20.11.2025. The fees of Advocate Commissioner is fixed as Rs.2,000/-.”

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid docket proceedings, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Trial Court passed the docket orders dated 04.09.2025 and 03.11.2025 in a cryptic and mechanical manner, without recording any reasons. It is further contended that as the Land Grabbing Case involves a dispute relating to the title, identity, extent and possession of land admeasuring Ac.9.11 gts, stated to be of a value in excess of Rs.67 crores, the learned Trial Court was required to follow the prescribed procedure and ought not to have appointed an Advocate-Commissioner to record the cross-examination of R.W.2 without assigning any reasons for such appointment. According to the petitioners, such mechanical appointment of an Advocate- Commissioner, without considering the nature of the dispute and without recording reasons, amounts to a jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court.

9. It was further contended that I.A.No.1717 of 2025 was filed by the respondents after nearly 13 years from the institution of LGC No.45 of 2011, subsequently renumbered as LGOP No.766 of 2017, and after completion of the petitioners’ evidence, seeking to receive 40 documents in evidence along with the chief affidavit of R.W.2. The learned Trial Court, by docket order dated 04.09.2025, recorded that the chief affidavit of R.W.2 had been filed and posted the matter for marking of documents and cross-examination, which impliedly disclosed that the application had been allowed. Consequently, without affording an opportunity to the petitioners to contest I.A.No.1717 of 2025, the learned Trial Court proceeded to mark the documents as Exs.B21 to B60 on 03.11.2025. It is contended that the aforesaid procedure adopted by the learned Trial Court is illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in terms of Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC, a document which ought to have been produced along with the written statement cannot be received in evidence except with the leave of the Court. In the present case, 40 documents were sought to be produced by the respondents after nearly 13 years from the institution of the proceedings and after completion of the evidence of the petitioners, without furnishing any satisfactory explanation for their belated production. It is contended that the learned Trial Court, instead of examining the mandatory requirement of Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC and exercising its judicial discretion upon consideration of the circumstances warranting such belated production, passed a cryptic and non-speaking order without recording any reasons as to the delay of nearly 13 years, the reasons for non-production of the documents at the appropriate stage, or the prejudice that may be caused to the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, the impugned order, being bereft of reasons and reflecting non-application of mind to the relevant considerations, suffers from failure to exercise judicial discretion in accordance with law.

11. It was further averred that the learned Trial Court ought not to have appointed an Advocate-Commissioner for recording the cross-examination of R.W.2 when the statutory pre-conditions of Order XXVI Rules 1 to 4 and 4-A CPC were not satisfied. R.W.2, aged about 30 years, is physically fit and capable of appearing before the Court and, significantly, his presence was recorded by the learned Trial Court on 03.11.2025. It is contended that there was neither any application seeking examination of the witness on commission nor any reason recorded for such appointment. Examination of a witness in open Court is the normal rule, whereas examination on commission is an exception, which can be resorted to only when the circumstances so warrant. Therefore, when R.W.2 was within the jurisdiction of the Court, physically fit and capable of appearing for crossexamination, there was no justification for appointing an Advocate- Commissioner.

12. It is urged that, having regard to the nature of the LGOP, involving allegations of land grabbing, serious disputes relating to title and possession, and critical questions concerning the identity, extent and possession of the subject property, effective examination and crossexamination of R.W.2 was required to be conducted in open Court. The learned Trial Court, instead of recording the correct and accurate deposition of the witness in open Court or directing his appearance before the Court, mechanically entrusted the recording of his cross-examination to an Advocate-Commissioner without assigning reasons. According to the petitioners, such appointment is arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

13. In support of these contentions, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the decisions in Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela I Circle and others ((2008) 9 SCC 407), Kranti Associates Private Limited and another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others ((2010) 9 SCC 496), Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs. Shukla and Brothers ((2010) 4 SCC 785), Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and another ((2012) 8 SCC 148), T.Srinivasa Rao Vs. T.Venkata Rangaiah and another (2006 (5) ALD 823), Ravi Satish Vs. Edala Durga Prasad and others (2009 (3) ALT 236), Voruganti Narayana Rao Vs. BodlaRammurthy and others (2011 (6) ALD 142), VemunandanaRamakrishnam Raju Vs. Darla Srinivas (2016 (5) ALT 26), PallepatiNarasaiah and others Vs. P.Satyanrayana and others (2019( 5) ALD 411 (TS)), Ramzia Bi (Dead) and others Vs. B.V.Lakshminarasamma (Died) and others (2025 (2) ALD 781 (AP)), Vanapalli Apparao Vs. Vanapalli Satyanarayana (Judgment dated 27.03.2025 passed in A.S.No.436 of 2024) and Sri Vishnu Constructions (Formerly known as P.Ramaiah, Special Class Contractor), Khammam Vs. State of Telangana and others (2026 (1) ALD 596 (TS) (DB) 2012).

14. It was, therefore, prayed to allow the CRP and set aside the impugned orders.

15. On the other hand, Sri Ali Farooq, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5, submitted that, while preparing the defence in the main suit, it came to their knowledge that respondent No.9 herein, namely late Mulle Anjaiah, and respondent No.1 herein had filed certain documents along with the counter in the main suit and in I.A.No.119 of and had also referred to the said documents in the counter filed in the LGC. However, owing to the transfer of the case from the LGC Court to the present Trial Court and the subsequent death of respondent No.4, the said documents could not be traced in the case record. It is further submitted that their counsel, Sri Sanjeev Rao, also passed away and, when the matter subsequently came up for evidence, upon verification, it was found that the documents referred to in the counter were not available in the case file, as the same had apparently been taken back for being filed in another case.

16. It is further contended that, thereafter the respondents made a thorough search with the Juniors of late Sri Sanjeev Rao and were able to trace and collect the said documents, which are essential for the proper and effective adjudication of the lis between the parties. Learned counsel submits that, in the course of tracing and procuring the documents, some delay occurred in filing the IA, but such delay was neither wilful nor wanton.

17. It was therefore contended that the learned Trial Court, upon considering the reasons assigned therein, permitted the documents to be produced and recorded, by its docket order dated 04.09.2025, that the chief-examination affidavit of R.W.2 had been filed and posted the matter for marking of documents and cross-examination on 16.09.2025.

18. It is further contended that the present Civil Revision Petition is filed basing on the docket proceedings, which are by way of administrative reasons, and they cannot be assailed in the present Revision Petition.

19. On the other hand, Sri M.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 8 submitted that respondent Nos.6 to 8 are neighbouring land owners and on account of the pendency of the present litigation, they are facing considerable inconvenience. It is therefore submitted that they approached the learned Trial Court seeking expeditious disposal of L.G.O.P.No.766 of 2017.

20. I have taken note of respective contentions of both sides and perused the material available on record.

21. Upon perusing the record, it is evident that the present Revision Petition is directed against the docket proceedings dated 04.09.2025 and 03.11.2025. The docket order dated 04.09.2025 records that the chiefaffidavit of R.W.2 was filed and that the matter was posted for marking of documents and cross-examination of R.W.2. The subsequent docket order dated 03.11.2025 records the presence of R.W.2, marking of Exs.B21 to B60 and the appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to record the cross-examination. These entries, read in the context of the stage of the proceedings, merely indicate the procedural course adopted by the learned Trial Court for taking the evidence of R.W.2.

22. It is relevant to note that a docket order is ordinarily an administrative and routine entry made by the Court for recording the progress of the proceedings, the steps taken on a particular date and the further course of the matter. Its primary purpose is to maintain a procedural track of the proceedings and to facilitate their orderly conduct. However, mere recording of the procedural steps in the docket does not, by itself, amount to a determination of the rights of the parties in the LGOP. Therefore, such formal procedural notings, which do not finally adjudicate upon the rights or liabilities of the parties, cannot ordinarily be assailed as though they constitute a final adjudication affecting substantive rights.

23. As regards the belated production of documents, the respondents have furnished an explanation for the delay. Whether such explanation is sufficient and whether the documents are ultimately admissible in evidence are matters which fall within the province of the learned Trial Court. The marking of documents as Exs.B21 to B60 does not, by itself, conclude all questions relating to their proof, relevancy, admissibility or evidentiary value, which remain open for consideration in accordance with law.

24. Further, even assuming that the petitioners have a grievance regarding the manner in which the application for production of documents was dealt with, i.e., without assigning any proper reason, such grievance has to be considered in the context of the actual prejudice, if any, caused to the petitioners. No material is placed before this Court to demonstrate that the petitioners have been deprived of an opportunity to contest the relevancy, admissibility or evidentiary value of the documents or to effectively cross-examine R.W.2 in relation thereto. Mere apprehension of prejudice cannot be a ground to interfere with every procedural step taken by the Trial Court during the course of trial.

25. Similarly, the appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner for recording the cross-examination is a procedural step taken by the learned Trial Court for facilitating the progress of the trial. The fact that R.W.2 was present before the Court on 03.11.2025 does not, by itself, render the procedural arrangement for recording his cross-examination illegal. The essential requirement is that the petitioners must have a fair and effective opportunity to cross-examine the witness and that the evidence so recorded forms part of the record of the proceedings. The Advocate-Commissioner has been directed to record the cross-examination and file a report before the learned Trial Court, thereby ensuring that the evidence remains subject to the control and supervision of the Trial Court.

26. It is also relevant to note that the present proceedings arise out of an ongoing trial concerning allegations of land grabbing and disputes relating to the title, identity, extent and possession of the subject property, stated to be of substantial value. However, the mere fact that the proceedings involve serious disputed questions of title and possession or that the property, as contended by the petitioner, is valued at more than Rs.67.00 crores cannot, by itself, render every procedural direction issued during the trial without jurisdiction. The contention that such questions necessarily require direct oral evidence and cross-examination in open Court also cannot be accepted, as the appointment of an Advocate- Commissioner under the order dated 03.11.2025 is itself intended to facilitate the recording of cross-examination and proper adjudication of the LGOP.

27. Despite the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on various judgments, the said decisions are distinguishable on facts and the legal issues involved therein are materially different from those arising in the present case. The judgments relied upon deal with circumstances different from the present proceedings, wherein the impugned orders are merely procedural and interlocutory in nature, relating to the recording of evidence and cross-examination of R.W.2. Therefore, the principles laid down in the said judgments cannot be mechanically applied to the present case and are of no assistance to the petitioners.

28. In the absence of any demonstration of failure of justice, denial of reasonable opportunity, or exercise of jurisdiction not vested in the learned Trial Court, interference under revisional jurisdiction is not warranted. Therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and it is liable to be dismissed.

29. Accordingly, C.R.P.No.257 of 2026, along with all connected applications, is dismissed. No costs.