APHC010369042025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3207] FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1789/2025 Between: 1. NAGELLA JAGADEESWARA RAO, S/O.RAMA KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING IN USA REP. BY ITS GPA AGENT GUTHA MUTHYALA NAGARAJU S/O.G.M.VENKATESH, AGED 40 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.2-116A, YARRAMITTA, RAJEEV NAGAR, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. MUVVA RAJESH, S/o. Sambasiva Rao R/o. 1 Mains of MAWCARSE, KINROSS United Kingdom, Rep. by his GPA Agent Muvva Venkata Subbayamma, W/o.Muvva Sambasiva Rao, Aged 59 years, R/o. 1st Lane, Rajendra Nagar, Guntur, Guntur 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 pleased toPleased to set aside the orders passed in I.A. No. 268 of 2025 in O.S.No. 109 of 2020 dated 01.05.2025 on the file of Honble V Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Spl.Judge for Trail of Offence Against Women, Guntur the pending disposal of Civil Revision Petition and pass IA 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 Pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy order passed in I.A. No. 268 of 2025 in O.S. No. 109 of 2020 on the file of the Hon’ble V Additional District And Sessions Judge-Cum-Spl.Judge For Trail Of Offence Against Women, Guntur and receive the main criminal Petition on file in the interest of justice and to pass 2 IA NO: 2 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 pleased to stay in all further proceedings in O.S. No. 109 of 2020 on the file of the Hon’ble V Additional District And Sessions Judge-Cum-Spl.Judge For Trail Of Offence Against Women, Guntur and pending disposal of Civil Revision Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent: 1. N SRIRAM MURTHY The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1789 of 2025 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 01.05.2025 in I.A.No.268 of 2025 in O.S.No.109 of 2020 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Offence Against Women, Guntur. 2. Revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit and the respondent is the plaintiff. The suit was filed for recovery of money. The plaintiff filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.268 of 2025, seeking to grant permission to file documents. The said application was allowed by the trial Court by order dated 01.05.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and carefully examined material on the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit was filed for recovery of an amount basing on the statement of account issued by Axis Bank, but now he intends to file NRO account statement, which are obtained prior to filing of the suit. However, the plaintiff failed to file the same before the Court and no reasons are stated for the delay in filing the said documents at the time of filing of the suit or at any early point of time. 4 5. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court has grossly erred in allowing the application filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC without demonstrating or recording any sufficient or cogent cause for the inordinate delay in filing the said application. The said application pertains to the production of documents which the plaintiff seeks to rely upon in the suit and which were admittedly sought to be filed after a lapse of more than five (05) years from the institution of the suit. The application filed by the respondent reveals that there is a complete absence of any plausible explanation, much less a legally tenable reason, for the prolonged delay in seeking leave to produce such documents. He further contends that the plaintiff failed to discharge the initial burden of demonstrating the due diligence or unavoidable circumstances which prevented the timely filing of the said documents, thereby rendering the impugned order unsustainable in law. Accordingly, he sought to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing the present Civil Revision Petition. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the plaintiff recently obtained his NRO account statement for the three years from 2017 to 2020 and the same is necessary to prove his contention that the amount was sent to the defendant through his NRO account. As such, the said documents are very much essential for proper adjudication of the suit. He further contends that having considered the entire material, the trial Court rightly allowed the petition filed by the plaintiff and as such, there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial Court, and no 5 interference is warranted. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition. 7. Having heard the both sides counsels and upon careful examination of the material available on record, it appears that the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.58,47,165/- being the amount of principal and interest due to him basing on a bank transaction and the amount send through NRE and NRO accounts of defendant’s firm from the bank account of the plaintiff. The suit is posted for continuation of marking documents. At that stage, the plaintiff filed a petition seeking leave of the Court to file documents i.e. NRO bank statement from 2017 to 2020. The respondent raised his objections, stating that there was delay in filing those documents. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court allowed the petition, permitting the plaintiff to produce the said documents. While allowing the interlocutory application, the trial Court categorically recorded that, upon careful perusal of the entire record, it was noticed that the documents i.e. certified copies of bank statement which were marked as Exs.A2 to A5 were not available in the record. Then the Court questioned the learned counsel for the petitioner about the said documents which are helpful to the Court for reconstruction of the record. 9. Under those circumstances, the plaintiff filed the interlocutory application seeking leave of the Court to produce the certified copies of the 6 bank statements in view of the misplacement of the said documents. The trial Court held that in a civil suit, documents play an important role in deciding the matter involved in the civil suit and as such, it is just and proper to provide an opportunity to parties to file documents in order to substantiate their respective contentions. This Court is fully agreeing with the opinion of the trial Court. Admittedly, after production of the documents by the plaintiff, the defendant would have every opportunity to raise objections regarding the said documents and to conduct cross examination of the witness. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, by allowing the production of the documents by the plaintiff in the pending suit at the stage of recording the evidence of plaintiff, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent. As such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the reasoned order passed by the trial Court and interference of this Court is not required. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. 11. It is made clear that the defendant can raise all his contentions before the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Date:12.09.2025 SCS 7 152 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1789 of 2025 Dt.12.09.2025 SCS