'A , IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE AMARAVATI PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN gyiL REVISION PETITION NOS: 2444. 2450 AND 2453 OF 2024 RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2444 OF 2024 Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 21.08.2024 in I.A.No.882 of 2023 in O.S.No.188 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. Between: Sri Chirisettty Uma Maheswara Rao, S/o Late Rama Rao R/o. D.No.55-4-76/1, Old Venkojipalem, H.B Colony, Visakhapatnam-22. ...Petitioner/Defendant Aged 50 years AND Sri Jandhyala Balasubrahmanyam, S/o Late Ramakrishna R/o. D.No.28/40, Circlepet, Machilipatnam - 521 001. Aged 44 years ...Respondents/Plaintiffs Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T.V.S. Counsel for the Respondent: SRI P.A. SESHU PRABHAKARA RAO 2- CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2450 OF 2074 Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 21.08.2024 in I.A.No.887 of 2023 in O.S.No.188 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam District. Between: Sri Chirisettty Lima Maheswara Rao, S/o Late Rama Rao, Aged 50 R/o. D.No.55-4-76/1, Old Venkojipalem, H.B Colony, Visakhapatnam-22. years. ...Petitioner/Defendant AND Sri Jandhyala Balasubrahmanyam, S/o Late Ramakrishna, Aged 44 R/o. D.No.28/40, Circlepet, Machilipatnam - 521 001. years ...Respondents/Plaintiffs Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T.V.S. PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: SRI P.A. SESHU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2453 OF 2024 Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 21.08.2024 in I.A.No.890 of 2023 in O.S.No.188 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 3 Between: Sri Chirisettty Uma Maheswara Rao, S/o Late Rama Rao, Aged 50 R/o. D.No.55-4-76/1, Old Venkojipalem, H.B Colony, Visakhapatnam-22 years ...Petitioner/Defendant AND Sri Jandhyala Balasubrahmanyam, S/o Late Ramakrishna, Aged 44 years R/o. D.No.28/40, Circlepet, Machilipatnam - 521 001. ...Respondents/Plaintiffs lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all the proceedings in O.SONo.188 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District Judge’s court at Visakhapatnam. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T.V.S. PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: SRI P.A. SESHU The Court made the following Common Order: 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: ...PETITIONER Sri Chirisettty Uma Maheswara Rao AND ...RESPONDENT Sri Jandhyala Balasubrahmanyam Counsel for the Petitioner: 1 .T V S PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1.P ASESHU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2450/2024 Between: ...PETITIONER Sri Chirisetty Uma Maheswara Rao AND .RESPONDENT Sri Jandhyala Balasubrahmanyam Counsel for the Petitioner: 1 .T V S PRABHAKARA RAO 2 RRR,J C.R.P.Nos.2444, 2450 & 2453 of2024 Counsel for the Respondent: 1.P ASESHU CIVIL REVISION F>ETITIQN NO: 2453/2024 Between: Sri Chirisettty Uma Maheswara Rao ...PETITIONER AND Sri Jandhyala Balasubrahmanyam Counsel for the Petitioner: 1 .T V S PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1.P ASESHU ...RESPONDENT The Court made the following common order: The petitioner herein is the owner of 231.5 sq. yards of land bearing L.P.No.64/87 Chinnamushidawada Village, Pendurthi Mandal D.No.11-81 plot No. 103, Sy.No.55/13 Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. The petitioner herein is said to have entered into an agreement of sale with the respondent herein said property. in of on 29.10.2011, for selling the 2. The respondent herein approached the Learned District Judge, Visakhapatnam, by way of O.S.No.188 performance of the said agreement of sale after having received II Additional of 2012, for a specific on the ground that the petitioner, 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. 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 3. restored to file. The evidence of the petitioner was also closed on 23.09.2023. 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 4. 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) l.A.No.890 of 2023 was filed to summon the Branch Manager of LIC Housing Finance Limited to produce letters of sanction. , /?/?/?, J 2453 of2024 Nos.2444^ and two letters, dated 08.12.201 30.03.2012. 3) l-A.No.SOI 1 'I5.12.2011 dated of 2023 additional documents listed 5) I.A.No.892 balance sale was filed to permit the plaintiff to file 'n the application. of 2023 was filed to permit the consideration. plaintiff to deposit the 5. The Trial Court dismissed I. These orders A.Nos.888 of 2023 appear to have become against these orders. 889 of 2023 391 of 2023. revision has been filed and final as no appeal or 6. The Trial Court, by orders, dated 21. OS.2024, allowed of 2023, 890 of 2023 I A.No.887 and 892 of 2023. 7. Aggrieved by these RP.Nos.2450 orders, the 2024, 2453 petitioner has of 2024 and 2444 ^ourt, by way c. approached this respectively. of 2024 8. The contention of the petitioner, i reopening the evidence ' '0 these cases, i of the 's that, the orders ot the Trial Court, the Branch Manager evidence in relation respondent and Limited to summoning produce and give L'C Housing Finance to letters of sanction, dated 08.12.2011 'mpermissible i '15.12.2011 tetters, dated 30.03.2012, is i the petitioner and in law. The learned counsel for given as to in the absence contends that why these documents PO explanation of any nature have not been has been oi pioduced earlier 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., Mumbai'. 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 9. perform his side of the contract. 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, 10. ^ 2019 (5) ALD 414 (TS) 6 RRR,J ^ C.R.P.Nos.2444, 2450 & 2453 of 2024 on account of pre-occupation of the same had also been set out in could not be placed before the Court respondent due to certain family issues and the the affidavit filed in I.A.No.890 of 2023. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit respondent was always ready and willing to perform his that the 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, pursuance of the directions of the Trial Court in I.A.No.892 of 2023 and in 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. petitioner for setting aside the decree, it would be period of pendency of this application while considering whether there was on account of the applications of the appropriate to exclude the the question of 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 respondeht himself or by Lie Housing Finance summoning the same from the Branch Manager 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. A Learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana, 14. 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. In the present case, there is no dispute that the documents which 15. 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. 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. 16. On a conspectus of these facts, this Court is of the opinion that permitting the respondent to summon these documents, cannot be treated to 17. t 8 RRR, J C.R.P.Nos.2444, 2450 & 2453 of 2024 SO arbitrary that it requires interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. be a decision by the Trial Court which iIS 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 to be a demonstration of the readiness and vi/illingness of the can be treated 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 sufficient to make out such a mere deposit may not be 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. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To. SE ON OFFICER Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam 1- The N Additional District District. 2. One CC to Sri TVS Prabhakara T 3. One CC to Sri P A Seshu, Advocate 4. Three CD Copies Rao, Advocate [OPUC] [OPUC] sree HIGH COURT DATED:21/02/2025 COWINIOM ORDER CRP.Nos.2444, 2450 AND 2453 of 2024 S’ 0 9 APR 2025 g ^ . Current Section DISMISSING THESE C.R.Ps. WITHOUT COSTS