APHC010158812025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI SMB THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 862 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Aggrieved by the order of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicia l Magistrateof First Class, Vizianagaram passed in I.A No. 631 of 2024 in O.S No. 173 of 2017 dated 06.01.2025. Between: Palli Thavitinaidu, S/o Late Appayya, Aged about 66 years, R/o. China Nagallavalasa Village, Thatipudi Panchayat, Gurla Mandal, Vizianagaram District ...Petitioner AND 1. Potnuru Simhachalam, , S/o Late Butchayya, Aged about 66 years, R/o Peda Nagallavalasa Village, Gurla Mandal, Vizianagaram District Potnuru Chiranjeevi, S/o Simhachalam, Aged about 41 years, R/o Peda Nagallavalasa Village, Gurla Mandal, Vizianagaram District Potnuru Satyanarayana, S/o Simhachalam Aged about 38 years, R/o Peda Nagallavalasa Village, Gurla Mandal, Vizianagaram District 2. 3. ...Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 all further proceedings in O.S.No.173 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram, pending disposal of the revision petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI TADDI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY The Court made the following order: APHC010158812025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) S!¥i0 [3332] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 862/2025 Between: 1.PALLI THAVITINAIDU, S/0 LATE APPAYYA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/0. CHINA NAGALLAVALASA VILLAGE PANCHAYAT, GURLA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM'DISTRICT THATIPUDI ...PETITIONER AND 1.POTNURU SIMHACHALAM, , S/0 LATE BUTCHAYYA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/0 PE DA NAGALLAVALASA VILLAGE, MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT GURLA 2.POTNURU CHIRANJEEVI, S/0 SIMHACHALAM, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/0 PEDA NAGALLAVALASA VILLAGE, GURLA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 3.POTNURU SATYANARAYANA, S/0 SIMHACHALAM AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O PEDA NAGALLAVALASA VILLAGE MANDAL. VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT GURLA ...RESPONDENT(S); 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 pleased to Aggrieved by the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram, passed in I.A No. 631 of 2024 in O.S No. 173 of 2017 dated 06.01.2025, 2 m lA NO: 1 OF 2C)?Fi Petition under Section 151 CPC r-, . • praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S,No.173 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.TADDI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: Impugning the orders passed in I.A.No.631 of 2024 in O.S.No.173 of 2017 dated 06.01.2025, the petitioner/plaintiff therein preferred this revision petition. The Revision Petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.173 of 2017 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram, for grant of injunction. In the said suit, the 1 defendant- Potnuru Simmachalam, filed his chief affidavit as D.W.1, thereafter, the defendants filed evidence affidavit of a third party named Chandaka Ramakrisha, who was examined as D.W.1 and was also cross-examined. Subsequently, the defendants filed an application seeking consideration of the evidence of the 1®‘ defendant, which was received as D.W.1. However, the 2. petitioner/plaintiff raised an objection on the ground that the 1®‘ defendant has no right to examine himself or adduce evidence without first obtaining the permission or leave of the Court, particularly after the completion of third-party defendant and considered his evidence. The trial Court permitted the 1 evidence as D.W.2. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.631 of 2024 in O.S.No.173 of 2017, to eschew the evidence of the 1®‘ defendant for not following the procedure contemplated under Civil Procedure Code and Civil Rules of Practice and intentionally avoiding to take permission of the Court. It is further prayed in the petition not to receive the document that was filed by the 1®* defendant for marking since the same cannot be marked even for collateral purpose as per the procedure. The said application was dismissed observing that an unregistered document can be received and marked for using the same for collateral purpose and the validity of the said document can only be decided at the time of judgement. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred. 3. Heard Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Sri Papudippu Sasidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the grounds of revision and the affidavit filed before the Court below, contended that the impugned order is wholly unsustainable on law and facts. The Trial Court failed to see the purport of Order 18 Rule 3A of CPC in right perspective and if the order impugned is not set aside, a great prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff and the same would lead to miscarriage of justice, as such, prayed to set aside the same and allow the application filed by the plaintiff before the Court below. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents/defendants contended that the 1®' defendant filed chief affidavit and the same 5. was returned and thereafter a third party was got examined by the defendants D.W.1. Later, the application filed by D.W.1 seeking permission of the Court to get himself examined as D.W.2 was allowed and accordingly, the Court considered his evidence as D.W.2. The Trial Court has taken due note of the said fact into consideration and accordingly dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner in right perspective. The petitioner has not raised any as 5 valid grounds warranting the interference of this Court. Revision is liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the revision. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 7. The facts emerge out from the material would indicate that initially the 1®* defendant filed his chief examination affidavit as D.W.1 and thereafter chief examination affidavit of some third party was filed and the said third party was St examined in chief as D.W.1 and was cross-examined. Thereafter, the 1 defendant filed a petition to receive his chief examination affidavit as D.W.2 and upon hearing both sides, the said petition was allowed. Thereafter, in the course of marking of documents, the learned counsel for the petitioner again raised objection for marking an unregistered sale agreement, consequently. he filed this petition. 8. The relief sought in the petition is a conglomeration of two reliefs. One is to eschew the evidence of D.W.1 for the reasons that he had not taken permission of the Court and the other is that the document being unregistered cannot be marked even for collateral purpose. 9. Rule 55 of Civil Rules of Practice prohibits seeks severable distinct reliefs in one application, therefore, the petition ought not to have been numbered at all. 10. As stated supra, since the petition filed by the defendant for seeking permission of the Court to adduce evidence as D.W.2 was allowed and the 6 petitioner allowed the said order to become final, seeking the relief to eschew the evidence of D.W.2 for the same reason is impermissible. The observations made by the trial Court shows that the said document was impounded and deficient stamp duty and penalty has been collected. Regarding the second part of the prayer, it is an established principle of law that an unregistered document can be marked for collateral purpose. Therefore, the trial Court had reached a correct conclusion in this regard, in view of the above, the order impugned does not require interference of this Court. The Civil Revision Petition being lack of merit deserves dismissal. 11. 12. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram. 2. One CC to Sri. Taddi Nageswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Papudippu Sashidar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC; 4. Two CD Copies MKP sree •a HIGH COURT OATED:26/06/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 862 OF 2025 I 23AU6 2fl25 ^ CunwM Swtion DISMISSING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS