APHC010282812025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Wednesday, the Thirtieth day of July, Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 1359 of 2025 Between: Siddam Naga Srinivasa Reddy and others ...Petitioners and Kunduru Pedda Sanjeeva Reddy @ Sanjeeva Reddy and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: 1. S. Chandra Sekhara Reddy Counsel for the respondents: 1. P. Nagendra Reddy The Court made the following: 2 C.R.P.No.1359 of 2025 ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 09.04.2025, allowing the petition in I.A.No.145 of 2025 in O.S.No.190 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, Kurnool District, filed by the plaintiffs under Order VII, Rule 14 and Section 151 C.P.C. to receive the following documents for marking them in evidence: i. The death certificate of Kunduru Pedda Sanjeeva Reddy, dated 30.10.2000. ii. The death certificate of Kunduru Venkata Subbamma, dated 31.10.2021. iii. The family member certificate issued by the revenue authorities relating to Venkata Subbamma (Meseva copy) iv. Adhar card of Kunduru Venkata Subbamma. 02. The plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of Ac.6.12 Cents in Survey No.1378, Ac.1.56 Cents in Survey No.316 and Ac.2.93 Cents in Survey No.85, all of which are situated in W.Govindinne Village. 03. The plaintiffs pleaded that all the plaint schedule properties originally belonged to Chaduvula Ramalinga Reddy; that he had two wives Sanjamma and Bala Achamma; that his wives succeeded his property on his death; that in a suit filed against Chaduvula Ramalinga Reddy, held by Marku Pedda Pullanna vide O.S.No.698 of 1954 before the District Munsif Court at Nandyal; that the same was decreed for the execution of which E.P.No.133 of 1956 was filed and the properties succeeded by his wives were sold in auction to Yellala Venkata Reddy, S/o. Subba Reddy on 24.01.1957, followed by issue of sale certificate and delivery of possession on 01.03.1960 vide E.A.No.54 of 1960; that 3 C.R.P.No.1359 of 2025 the auction purchaser gifted the said properties to his son-in-law Kunduru Sanjeeva Reddy @ Pedda Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o. Sanjeeva Reddy on 22.09.1960 under a registered gift deed and delivered possession of the properties; that Kunduru Pedda Sanjeeva Reddy had five sons (i) Pedda Sanjeeva Reddy, (ii) Chinna Sanjeeva Reddy (iii) Hanumantha Reddy, (iv) Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy and (v) Chandrasekhara Reddy out of whom, the fourth son died; that Kunduru Pedda Sanjeeva Reddy died about more than 15 years ago and his four sons who are the plaintiffs No.1 to 4 succeeded his properties and thus, have been in possession; and that the plaintiffs applied for P.P.B. which are in process. They further claim that since the defendants and their men high-handedly tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the schedule property on 10.07.2018, the suit was filed. 04. The defendants filed written statement denying the case pleaded by the plaintiffs and further stating that the defendant No.1 is in possession of Ac.0.75 Cents in Survey No.316/1 and Ac.3.06 Cents in Survey No.1378 of the plaint described lands as he gifted the same under a registered gift deed document No.633 of 1977 at S.R.O. Koilkuntla on 28.06.1997 by his grandmother Chaduvula Bala Achamma, W/o. C. Rama Linga Reddy and that as he was by that time a minor, his father Siddam Ramakrishna Reddy accepted gift and took possession of the property on behalf of the minor child; that after the defendant No.1 attained majority and completed age of 21 years, he has been in possession of the same; that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Dornipadu issued P.P.B. and title deed under Patta No.1325 in favour of the defendant No.1 on 15.09.2004; that all the revenue records such as P.P.B., title deed, 1 (B) R.O.R., Adangal are in the name of the defendant No.1; that the original title deed was deposited with Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Dornipadu Branch for availing crop loan; that the defendant No.1 filed O.S.No.64 of 2018 on 18.06.2018 against 4 C.R.P.No.1359 of 2025 Kunduru Lingam Maheswara Reddy, S/o. Chinna Sanjeeva Reddy and three others of Hanumantharayunipeta Village of Mylavaram Mandal, Kadapa District seeking permanent injunction for the above said properties of the defendant No.1 and got decree against them on 17.04.2019; that taking advantage of the suit, the plaintiffs alleging themselves as sons of K. Pedda Sanjeeva Reddy by mentioning simply as „@‟, are claiming plaint schedule properties; that the alleged gift deed dated 22.09.1960, vide document No.1919 of 1960, does not clearly mention to whom the property was gifted because it was gifted to K. Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o. Sanjeeva Reddy and there was no whisper about K. Pedda Sanjeeva Reddy or K. Chinna Sanjeeva Reddy or K. Nadipi Sanjeeva Reddy; so, persons with the names claimed in the plaint are not true persons to whom the alleged registered gift deed dated 22.09.1960 was intended and moreover the same was not acted upon and no property was delivered on 22.09.1960 to the donor. 05. 05. In the written statement, it is further pleaded that on 28.06.1977, Chaduvula Bala Achamma executed a registered sale deed in favour of Siddam Siva Reddy, S/o. Chinna Bali Reddy and delivered possession of Ac.1.50 Cents in Survey No.85, Pyki and Ac.3.27 Cents in Survey No.1339/2, Pyki and since then, the donee enjoyed the property with absolute rights and recognizing his rights and possession, the revenue officials issued P.P.B. and title deed by mutating his name in the revenue records; that on 19.08.2015, S. Siva Reddy executed a registered gift deeds in favour of his two sons (i) S. Raja Sekhar Reddy (ii) S. Krishna Reddy, gifting an extent of Ac.0.75 Cents in Survey No.85 each and thereafter, the revenue authorities mutated the names accordingly in the records and issued PPB and title deeds in their favour; that S. Raja Sekhar Reddy filed a suit in O.S.No.62 of 2018 and S. Krishna Reddy filed suit in O.S.No.63 of 2018 against K. Lingam Maheswara Reddy and the suits are pending; that Chaduvula Bala 5 C.R.P.No.1359 of 2025 Achamma is the paternal aunt of S. Siva Reddy and S. Ramakrishna Reddy and thus, she gifted the properties to them and moreover she was under the care and protection of them till her last breath; and that as per the recitals in receipt of possession in Amin‟s endorsement written in E.A.No.54 of 1960 in E.P.No.133 of 1956, it was clearly stated that Chaduvula Bala Achamma obtained a decree of maintenance against her husband C. Rama Linga Reddy in O.S.No.420 of 1951 and subject to her enjoyment during her lifetime, the symbolic possession was taken and delivered to Y. Venkata Reddy and moreover no boundaries were mentioned in the possession certificate issued by the Court Amin and therefore, there is no transfer of physical properties and accordingly, the registered gift deed dated 22.09.1960 is sham and nominal and as per Section 14 of the Indian Succession Act, 1956, C. Bala Achamma got absolute right and that the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule are self-serving and that the plaintiffs have not been in personal enjoyment of the property nor do they have right or title over the plaint schedule properties and moreover, the village of the plaintiffs is 100 K.M. away from W.Govindinne Village. 06. 06. In the plaint, the following list of documents were cited as filed: i. Certified copy of sale certificate issued by the District Munsiff, Nandyal. ii. Certified copy of possession proceedings. iii. Certified copy of registered gift deed dated 22.09.1960. 07. However, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.492 of 2024 under Order VII, Rule 14 and Section 151 C.P.C. to receive three documents, viz., i. Certified copy of delivery of possession proceedings of the District Munsiff Court. ii. Original registered certified copy of possession proceedings. 6 C.R.P.No.1359 of 2025 iii. Certified copy of registered gift deed dated 22.09.1960. It was submitted that this petition was filed as the original of the certified copies of documents mentioned in the plaint were not filed and their Photostat copies only were filed along with the plaint. 08. The petition was allowed and P.W.1 was examined. Thereafter, I.A.No.145 of 2025 was filed to receive the aforesaid documents stating that these original documents were not available with the plaintiffs and they were misplaced and were not traced out and further that the plaintiffs secured some other documents and they are very necessary for better adjudication of the suit. It is further stated that the delay in filing the documents is neither willful nor wanton and therefore, it is necessary to grant the permission. 09. The defendants filed counter opposing the petition stating that the petitioners have already filed I.A.No.492 of 2024 for the same relief and it was allowed on 17.09.2024 and thereafter, the plaintiff No.2 was examined in chief and cross-examination and the proposed documents are fabricated to fill up the gaps in the evidence-in-chief and cross- examination of P.W.1 and that there was no whisper about the existence of those documents at any time nor was there any pleading and that the plaintiffs ought to have filed these documents at the time of filing of the suit or at least along with I.A.No.492 of 2024. It is further contended that the petitioners would have filed these documents if they were really in possession of them and moreover the petitioners did not give any cogent and convincing reasons to file the petition at a belated stage. The respondents prayed to dismiss the petition for the above reasons. 10. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court allowed the petition on 09.04.2025 observing that as per the affidavit, the plaintiffs secured these documents and it was also not specifically mentioned about how 7 C.R.P.No.1359 of 2025 the documents were misplaced, however, considering the circumstances (in the case) the trial Court was inclined to allow the petition giving an opportunity to the plaintiffs to prove their case and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the petition is allowed as there is every chance to examine the witnesses about the documents and moreover the suit is of the year 2018. 11. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed by the respondents / defendants reiterating the contentions raised in the counter. 12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the petition is an attempt to fill up the gaps in the evidence of P.W.1 and moreover, if these documents were available, they could have mentioned them in the pleadings and produced them along with I.A.No.492 of 2024 and that these documents were fabricated to suit the case of the plaintiffs as an afterthought. He further submitted that the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the contentions raised in the counter and just allowed the petition as the suit was filed in the year 2018 and that the plaintiffs failed to assign valid reasons for not filing these documents earlier or how these documents were procured. He further contended that the petitioners have not shown any exceptional circumstances to grant them permission and that the petition is an attempt to take undue advantage and that the delay in filing the documents was also not observed by the trial Court and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petition be dismissed. 13. He placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Telangana State in Choudari Rajesham Vs. Choudari Lingalaiah 8 C.R.P.No.1359 of 2025 (died) and another 1, wherein at paragraph No.14, it was held as follows: “This principle was reiterated in Voruganti Narayana Rao vs. Bodla Rammurthy and Ors [2011(6) ALT 299] The Court explained that Rules 1-A and 1-A(3) of Order VIII Code of Civil Procedure, were substituted by Act 46 of 1999 with effect from 01.07.2002. The object with which those Rules were amended was to curb the phenomenal delays in the procedural aspects leading to procrastination of the proceedings before the Civil Court. The Parliament has thought it fit to stipulate time limits for the parties to file their defense and produce the documents along with the defense so that the cases can be disposed of without avoidable delays. This being the avowed object with which the above noted provisions are amended, Rule 1-A(3) of Order VIII Code of Civil Procedure, which on a literal interpretation appears to vest unlimited discretion with the Court, requires to be interpreted so as to advance the intendment of the legislation. The Court before which the Defendant produced the said documents after filing of the written statement, therefore, needs to be circumspect in examining whether proper reasons are assigned by the Defendant for not producing the documents along with the written statement. Unless the reasons assigned by the Defendant discloses sufficient cause for his failure to produce the documents within the time stipulated in Rule 1-A of Order VIII Code of Civil Procedure, the Court shall not permit the Defendant to file such documents later. Undoubtedly, 2011 (6) ALD 142 unduly liberal approach in this regard would frustrate 1 2019 (5) ALT 226 9 C.R.P.No.1359 of 2025 the purpose for which the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are amended. “ 14. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Telangana State in Lakshmi Priya Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Ramalingam Mills Ltd., and another2 wherein at paragraph No.19, it was held as follows: “In the instant case also it is clear that the documents, which were sought to be filed now, were available with the plaintiffs and there was no foundation made in the plaint with regard to those documents. The plaintiffs earlier availed the opportunity to file additional documents and on that occasion also they did not choose to file the present documents. Even sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order VII of CPC provides for production of documents with the leave of the Court at the hearing of the suit. But, when the evidence of the parties was completed and the suit is coming up for arguments, though technically speaking, the hearing of the suit can be called as not completed, it is not the intendment of the sub-rule to grant leave to a party to file the documents before commencement of arguments. Further, the affidavits filed in support of the applications do not indicate any justifiable reason for accepting the said documents and recalling the witnesses after conclusion of trial. The amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure were made in order to speed up the process of disposal of cases and if this type of applications are allowed, it would go against the spirit of the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure.” 2 2016 (2) ALT 537 10 C.R.P.No.1359 of 2025 15. Ms. Y.Bhanu Sri Akhila, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present petition is not similar to the previous petition in I.A.No.492 of 2024 as the reasons mentioned in the previous petition is misplacement of records, whereas, the reason for filing the present petition is that the documents were secured. She further submitted that the proposed documents to be filed are maintained by the government, therefore, they were not prepared by the parties and that no new case was introduced and these documents are required to place evidence before the Court for better adjudication. She distinguished the application of the aforesaid decisions referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that they were delivered in the light of the facts and circumstances in that case which are not tackled in the present case. She further supported the decision of the trial Court and that no prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioners by permitting the plaintiffs to file the documents. 16. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that dates mentioned on the documents indicate that they were not recently obtained before filing of the petition. 17. Order VII, Rule 14(1) & (3) C.P.C. which reads as follows: “14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies.— (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or 11 C.R.P.No.1359 of 2025 entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.” 18. As can be seen from the documents proposed to be filed, they have relevance to the plea taken by the plaintiffs and also the denial made in the plea in the written statement regarding the name of Kunduru Sanjeev Reddy @ Peda Sanjeev Reddy and it is a crucial aspect for adjudication of the suit. The respondents who opposed the petition to receive the documents contended that they are fake documents. Some of them are prior to the date of filing of the suit. Of course, the genuineness of the document can be decided only after receiving a document in evidence and not at the time of granting leave to file the document in evidence, unless the document itself is prima facie found to be ingenuine in which case the permission can be rejected as it is only a discretion to grant or reject leave to file a document. Thus, the documents sought to be filed are relevant and can be granted permission to file subject to their genuineness be proved to the satisfaction of the Court during adjudication. However, the respondents opposed the petition further contending that they could have been filed previously when another similar application was filed. No doubt, they could have been filed earlier, if they were available. The petitioners contended that these documents were not available by then. The statement does not appear to be unjust. It is settled law that procedural law is a handmaid of justice and not to use it to defeat the justice. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sugandhi (dead) by legal representatives Vs. P.Raj Kumar3, wherein it was observed at paragraph No.9 as follows: 3 (2020) 10 SCC 706 12 C.R.P.No.1359 of 2025 “9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the documents under subrule (3).” and Mahila Ramkali Devi Vs. Nandram (dead) through Legal Representatives4, wherein it was observed that rules of procedure are intended to be a handmade to the administration of justice and a party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or infraction of rules of procedure. 19. Rule 14(3) of Order VII has not imposed any bridles on the discretionary power of court to grant leave as per the requirement of ultimately reaching the goal of rendering justice on merits in every case. Each case is to be decided in the light of its own facts and circumstances in the cases cited by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the set of facts and circumstances and the stage of the case are different. In the present case, the permission to file the documents can be given as they are necessary to decide the important question of identity of the person through whom the plaintiffs claim their title. 4 (2015) 13 SCC 132 13 C.R.P.No.1359 of 2025 However, the petition can be allowed subject to some terms as to costs to meet the inconvenience caused to the revision petitioners. 20. In the result, the revision petition is allowed to the extent of imposing costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) payable by the petitioners in I.A.No.145 of 2025 to the contesting respondents / revision petitioners within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the order in I.A.No.145 of 2025 in O.S.No.190 of 2018, dated 09.04.2025 stands set aside without any further order. Subject to this condition, the order in I.A.No.145 of 2025, dated 09.04.2025 is confirmed. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.30.07.2025 NSM / PNV 14 C.R.P.No.1359 of 2025 149 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 1359 of 2025 Dt.30.07.2025 NSM / PNV