1 APHC010128322024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 595/2024 Between: 1. PASUPULETI LAKSHMI, W/O SANJEEVA RAO (LATE) HINDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O P.NO. 1-1/2-3, ALLASIMHADRI STREET, RAAVI CHETTU CENTRE, VIDYADHARAPURAM VIJAYAWADA-12, NTR DISTRICT 2. GADE YASODA,, W/O SIVA KISHORE KUMAR, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, D.NO. 2-360, VUNDAVALLI VILLAGE, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522501 3. MAJJI VANI,, W/O BHANU PRASAD, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O D.NO. HIG-2-221, APNA BAZAAR, KEEP WELL PARK ROAD, BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA-12,NTR DISTRICT 4. PASUPULETI RADHIKA,, D/O SANJEEVA RAO (LATE), HINDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 1-1/2-3, ALLASIMHADRI STREET, RAAVI CHETTU CENTRE, VIDYADHARAPU VIJAYAWADA-12,NTR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. K VIJAYA SUSEELA, W/o Peddaiah, Hindu, aged about 44 Years, R/o D.No. 10-14/3-36, Mallikharjunapet, Bala Ramaniah Street, Vijayawada, NTR District ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be 2 pleased topleased to set aside the order dated 21-12-2023 passed ln the Court of the Honourable I Additional Senior Civil Judge,Vijayawada in I.A. No.No. 308 /2023 in O.S. 151/2019 and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings in OS No. 151 of 2019 on the file of the I Honourable Court ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE VIJAYAWADA Pending the Civil Revision Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M VENKATA SAI NIKHIL KASHYAP Counsel for the Respondent: 1. KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners/defendants challenging the order dated 21.12.2023 passed in I.A.No.308 of 2023 in O.S.No.151 of 2019 on the file of Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. 2. The respondent/plaintiff herein has filed O.S.No.151 of 2019 against the petitioners/defendants, for recovery of the amount due under two pro notes dated 21.09.2018 for Rs.10,00,000/- each along with interest, which is alleged to have been borrowed by one Pasupuleti Sanjeeva Rao (husband of the 1st petitioner and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 4) and that he has executed two promissory notes in favour of plaintiff at Vijayawada on 21.09.2018. 3. The petitioners/defendants filed a written statement in the said suit stating that late Pasupuleti Sanjeeva Rao has mortgaged the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and took a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on 20.07.2017 and the said mortgage deed was registered vide document No.7641 of 2017 on the file of Joint Sub-Registrar, Vijayawada. It is further stated that apart from the said transaction, late Pasupuleti Sanjeeva Rao also took Rs.2,00,000/- from the husband of the plaintiff on 20.07.2017 by mortgaging the property through a registered mortgage deed vide document No.7642 of 2017 on the file of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Vijayawada. It is also stated that on 01.06.2018, the husband of the 1st petitioner/defendant paid the entire debt to the plaintiff and her husband with interest and got released the suit schedule 4 property which was mortgaged vide registered document Nos.6241 and 6242 of 2018, on the file of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Vijayawada. 4. During the course of trial, the petitioners/defendants herein have filed I.A.No.308 of 2023 under Order VIII: Rule 1(A) and Section 151 of C.P.C., requesting the court below to receive the certified copies of the documents vide No.7641/2017, dated 20.07.2017; 7642/2017, dated 20.07.2017; 6242/2018, dated 01.06.2018; 6241/2018, dated 01.06.2018 and 6261/2018, dated 04.06.2018 by condoning the delay in filing the same. 5. The said I.A.No.308 of 2023 was dismissed by the Court below vide order dated 21.12.2019 on the ground that no reason for delay in filing the documents was mentioned therein. Aggrieved by the same the petitioners/defendants have filed the present petition. 6. When the petition came up for hearing on 20.03.2024, this Court has passed the following interim order: “Having regard to the reasons mentioned in the grounds of revision and taking into account the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, there shall be stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.151 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, for a period of four (04) weeks.” The said interim order was extended thereafter, from time to time. 7. Heard Mr. M.V.S. Nikhil Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 5 8. On a perusal of the entire material available on record, it can be seen that the petitioners/defendants took a stand in the written statement that late Pasupuleti Sanjeeva Rao has mortgaged the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and her husband after receiving Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs.2,00,000/- from plaintiff and Rs.2,00,000/- from the husband of the plaintiff) and the same has been registered vide document Nos.7641 and 7642 of 2017 on the file of Joint Sub-Registrar, Vijayawada. Thereafter, on 01.06.2018, late Pasupuleti Sanjeeva Rao has paid the entire debt to the plaintiff and her husband with interest and got released the suit schedule property which was mortgaged vide document Nos.7641 and 7642 of 2017 on the file of Joint Sub-Registrar, Vijayawada. The said documents referred above were not in possession of the petitioners/defendants as on the date of filing of the written statement. However, immediately after receipt of the said documents, the petitioners/defendants filed I.A.No.308 of 2023 in the suit and the same was dismissed by the Court below only on the sole ground that the petitioners/defendants have not assigned any reasons for filing the said documents after a lapse of four years. 9. Though the petitioners/defendants has admittedly not assigned any reasons for the delay of 4 years in filing the proposed documents before the Court below in spite of there being a mention about the same in the written statement with regard to the said documents, however, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the proposed documents were not available with the petitioners as on the date of filing of 6 the suit, as such, they could not put forward the same before the Court below. In such a case, admittedly, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff, if at all these documents are taken on record, as it helps in adjudicating the matter in the interest of justice. While it is true that the petitioners failed to file the documents within the stipulated timeframe, the Court, in the interest of justice, could have imposed appropriate costs on the petitioners to compensate for any inconvenience or delay caused. 10. In view of the above, this Court feels it appropriate to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order dated 21.12.2023 passed by learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in I.A.No.308 of 2023 in O.S.No.151 of 2019 and with a further direction to receive the certified copies of the documents submitted by the petitioners/defendants, subject to the petitioners/defendants paying a cost of Rs.2,000/- before the concerned Court. 11. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:13.08.2025 Gss