APHC010371512024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1997/2024 Between: Potti Pati Jaya Lakshmi, ...PETITIONER AND Gujjari Lakshmanna and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KALANGI SUMALATHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KANAKALA DEVI PRASANNAKUMAR The Court made the following Order: Aggrieved by the order dated 01.07.2024 passed in I.A.No.177/2024 in I.P.No.48/2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Dhone (for short “trial Court”), the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 2. Heard Ms.Kalangi Sumalatha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Devi Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. 2 3. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the trial Court in dismissing an application filed under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) and under Section 151 of CPC for receiving the petition schedule documents for marking on behalf of the petitioner is contrary to law. He further submits that the insolvency petition filed by the respondents against the petitioner and her father to declare her father as insolvent and to cancel the register sale deeds which were executed by her father in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that the insolvency petition is to prove the register sale deeds is valid consideration and her father never executed sham and nominal documents in favour of the petitioner, to the petition schedule documents and the trial Court ought to have allowed the application. He further submits that the petitioner purchased the property through register sale deeds to valid consideration and the same was also taken as plea in chief affidavit (i.e., deposition) and the trial Court erred in dismissing the application on the ground that “there is every possibility to the petitioner/2nd respondent to file the petition schedule documents at the filing of main petition itself and no circumstances appeared to substantiate the version of the petitioner to allow this petition. In the above said circumstances this Court this that there is no force in the version of the petitioner/2nd respondent and she is not entitled for the relief sought for.” He further submits that the trial Court has not passed a reasoned order by explaining the reasons in dismissing the I.A. He further submits that the trial Court has not gone into the merits and has not assigned 3 any reasons and has just dismissed the I.A. without explaining the reasons. The reasoning of the trial Court in passing the impugned order is not legal and correct. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed for grant of any relief in the instant petition and submits that the petition schedule documents are created for the purpose of this case only and the petitioners colluded with each other and created registered sale deeds in her name which are nominal and that the 1st petitioner therein has filed Debtor I.P.No.46/2022 against the respondents and others to evade their debts in collusion with the petitioner and her husband and that the alleged transaction occurred prior to filing debtor I.P., but the 1st petitioner therein has not whisper about the same in the I.P., with regard to the transaction with the petitioner and payment of amount to the lenders after the sale of petition schedule properties. He further submits that the I.A.No.177/2024 has filed after thought of filing of the I.P., and the 1st petitioner therein created the petition schedule documents in the name of his henchmen to mislead the Court and that they are fake documents. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents prays to dismiss the civil revision petition. 5. Perused the record. 4 6. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the petitioner has not filed any petition under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) with regard to receiving the documents with condonation of delay. Further, the petitioner has not provided any explanation for the delay in filing the petition for receiving the documents. Additionally, the petitioner has not mentioned anything about the documents in the counter filed before the trial Court. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that, the petitioner has completely misconceived the facts and filed the present civil revision petition. Therefore, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the order of the trial Court and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. 9. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date : 28.02.2025 BMS