APHC010453882024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 2444, 2450 & 2453 of 2024 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2444/2024 Between: Sri Chirisettty Uma Maheswara Rao ...PETITIONER AND Sri Jandhyala Balasubrahmanyam ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V S PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. P A SESHU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2450/2024 Between: Sri Chirisetty Uma Maheswara Rao ...PETITIONER AND Sri Jandhyala Balasubrahmanyam ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V S PRABHAKARA RAO 2 RRR, J C.R.P.Nos.2444, 2450 & 2453 of 2024 Counsel for the Respondent: 1. P A SESHU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2453/2024 Between: Sri Chirisettty Uma Maheswara Rao ...PETITIONER AND Sri Jandhyala Balasubrahmanyam ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V S PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. P A SESHU The Court made the following common order: The petitioner herein is the owner of 231.5 sq. yards of land bearing D.No.11-81, plot No.103, L.P.No.64/87 in Sy.No.55/13 of Chinnamushidawada Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. The petitioner herein is said to have entered into an agreement of sale with the respondent herein on 29.10.2011, for selling the said property. 2. The respondent herein approached the Learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, by way of O.S.No.188 of 2012, for a specific performance of the said agreement of sale on the ground that the petitioner, after having received some advance and after the respondent had obtained 3 RRR, J C.R.P.Nos.2444, 2450 & 2453 of 2024 necessary sanctions from the LIC Housing Finance Limited, had resiled from the agreement and was refusing to execute the necessary sale and receive the sale consideration. 3. The trial in the matter was taken up and an ex-parte order was passed in the year 2015, after the petitioner herein had been set ex-parte. Thereafter, the petitioner moved I.A.No.1620 of 2015, for setting aside the said ex-parte order. This application was allowed by the Trial Court, by an order, dated 11.09.2023, wherein the decree was set aside and the suit was restored to file. The evidence of the petitioner was also closed on 23.09.2023. 4. At that stage, the respondent herein filed six applications bearing I.A.Nos.887 to 892 of 2023. The relief sought in these applications are as follows: 1) I.A.No.887 of 2023 was filed to reopen the evidence of the respondent herein. 2) I.A.No.888 of 2023 was filed to recall P.W.-1 for giving further evidence. 3) I.A.No.889 of 2023 was filed to permit the plaintiff (respondent herein) to file additional evidence. 4) I.A.No.890 of 2023 was filed to summon the Branch Manager of LIC Housing Finance Limited to produce letters of sanction, 4 RRR, J C.R.P.Nos.2444, 2450 & 2453 of 2024 dated 08.12.2011, 15.12.2011 and two letters, dated 30.03.2012. 5) I.A.No.891 of 2023 was filed to permit the plaintiff to file additional documents listed in the application. 6) I.A.No.892 of 2023 was filed to permit the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration. 5. The Trial Court dismissed I.A.Nos.888 of 2023, 889 of 2023 and 891 of 2023. These orders appear to have become final as no appeal or revision has been filed against these orders. 6. The Trial Court, by orders, dated 21.08.2024, allowed I.A.No.887 of 2023, 890 of 2023 and 892 of 2023. 7. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way C.R.P.Nos.2450 of 2024, 2453 of 2024 and 2444 of 2024 respectively. 8. The contention of the petitioner, in these cases, is that, the orders of the Trial Court, reopening the evidence of the respondent and summoning the Branch Manager, LIC Housing Finance Limited to produce and give evidence in relation to letters of sanction, dated 08.12.2011, 15.12.2011 and two letters, dated 30.03.2012, is impermissible in law. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no explanation of any nature has been given as to why these documents have not been produced earlier and in the absence of 5 RRR, J C.R.P.Nos.2444, 2450 & 2453 of 2024 such explanation, the Trial Court could not have allowed the applications. The learned counsel also contends that there is an inordinate delay of eight years in moving these applications. Reliance is placed upon the Judgment of a Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Telangana in the case of V. Balakrishnan and another v. Captial First Ltd., Mumbai1. 9. The petitioner assails the order in I.A.No.892 of 2023 on the ground that the permission granted to the respondent to deposit the balance sale consideration, would not in any manner, detract from the fact that the respondent was not ready and willing to perform his side of the contract. It is submitted that granting such permission, at this stage, would amount to accepting the plea of the respondent that he was always ready and willing to perform his side of the contract. 10. In reply, Sri P.A.Seshu, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the suit itself had been decreed in the year 2015 and came to be reopened in September, 2023, on account of the applications moved by the petitioner. It was only after the suit had been reopened that the respondent could move applications mentioned above. He would submit that these applications were moved within the time limit of the suit being reopened and as such the contention that there was delay of 8 years cannot be accepted. The learned counsel would also contend that the documents, that are now being summoned from the Branch Manager, LIC Housing Finance Limited, 1 2019 (5) ALD 414 (TS) 6 RRR, J C.R.P.Nos.2444, 2450 & 2453 of 2024 could not be placed before the Court on account of pre-occupation of the respondent due to certain family issues and the same had also been set out in the affidavit filed in I.A.No.890 of 2023. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the balance sale consideration could not be paid out earlier on account of the pendency of the suit and the applications. The learned counsel would submit that the balance consideration has already been deposited into Court, in pursuance of the directions of the Trial Court in I.A.No.892 of 2023 and consequently, C.R.P.No.2444 of 2024 has become infructuous. 12. In view of the fact that the suit had been decreed in the year 2015 and was reopened in the year 2023, on account of the applications of the petitioner for setting aside the decree, it would be appropriate to exclude the period of pendency of this application while considering the question of whether there was any inordinate delay on the part of the respondent in moving the applications. Once this period is removed, it cannot be said that there was inordinate delay on the part of the respondent in moving the applications moved above. However, the question would still remain as to whether adequate explanation has been given as to why the documents in question were not produced in Court either by the respondent himself or by summoning the same from the Branch Manager, LIC Housing Finance Limited. 7 RRR, J C.R.P.Nos.2444, 2450 & 2453 of 2024 13. The explanation given by the respondent for not producing these documents is that he was pre-occuped on account of family issues. However, details of the family issues, which had precluded him from producing the documents, has not been set out in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.890 of 2023. 14. A Learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana, in the Judgment cited above, after referring to various Judgments of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, had held that, the absence of reasons, explaining the failure to file documents, along with the plaint, is sufficient to non-suit the applicant. 15. In the present case, there is no dispute that the documents which are now sought to be summoned from the Branch Manager, LIC Housing Finance Limited, were in existence and were within the knowledge of the respondent. However, the explanation of the respondent, though not fully satisfactory, cannot be rejected out of hand to hold that there is no explanation at all. 16. In any event, the timeline of this case, on account of the inordinate gap between the date of ex-parte order and the date on which the ex-parte had been set aside, explains the delay. 17. On a conspectus of these facts, this Court is of the opinion that permitting the respondent to summon these documents, cannot be treated to 8 RRR, J C.R.P.Nos.2444, 2450 & 2453 of 2024 be a decision by the Trial Court which is so arbitrary that it requires interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 18. As far as the question of deposit of the balance sale consideration is concerned, the Revision Petition would be infructuous on account of the fact that the balance amount has already been deposited. However, the question of whether such deposit of the balance can be treated to be a demonstration of the readiness and willingness of the respondent in performing his part of the contract through out this period is a question which would have to be gone into by the Trial Court and mere deposit may not be sufficient to make out such a case. 19. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J 21.02.2025 MJA 9 RRR, J C.R.P.Nos.2444, 2450 & 2453 of 2024 92 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 2444, 2450 & 2453 of 2024 21.02.2025 MJA