APHC010487012024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 2701/2024 Between: Kalepalli Rupadevi and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Bandaru Ramesh ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VENKAT SAILENDRA G Counsel for the Respondent: 1. BASAVARAJU SAI PRANEETH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 2729/2024 Between: Kalepalli Rupadevi and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Bandaru Ramesh ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VENKAT SAILENDRA G Counsel for the Respondent: 1. BASAVARAJU SAI PRANEETH The Court made the following: 2 COMMON ORDER: Since both the Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the common order dated 05.09.2024 passed in I.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2024 in O.S.No.346 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, these Civil Revisions Petitions are taken up together and they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit, i.e., O.S.No.346 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram. The petitioners- defendants filed I.A.No.300 of 2024 under Order VIII Rule 1(3)(a) and Section 151 C.P.C. to receive documents, i.e., income tax returns along with account statements, and to mark them on behalf of the defendants. The petitioners-defendants also filed I.A.No.301 of 2024 under Order XVIII Rule 17 and Section 151 C.P.C. to recall D.W.1 for further chief- examination for marking the documents. 3. The learned trial Court Judge has dismissed both the I.As. vide common order dated 05.09.2024, observing that the Court has not found any valid statement and reasonable ground to receive the petition listed documents at the fag end of the suit, when the suit stands posted 3 for arguments, further observing that those documents are not admissible in evidence, as they are not public documents, under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, and to recall the evidence of D.W.1 is unwarranted, and the petitioners-defendants have not assigned any valid and strong reasons in the affidavit filed in support of the petitions and, accordingly, both the petitions filed by the defendants to receive documents as well as to recall the evidence of D.W.1 for marking documents are dismissed. 4. Assailing the said order dated 05.09.2024, the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants. 6. The petition is filed claiming that as if the respondent-plaintiff's counsel questioned during the cross-examination whether the petitioners-defendants could file income tax returns stating that rent was paid at a rate of Rs.3,500/- in the beginning in the year 2002 and at rate of Rs.7,500/- from the year 2010 onwards. 7. On perusal of the cross-examination, the respondent-plaintiff's counsel did not raise any such questions during the petitioners- 4 defendants’ cross-examination, and the present petition is filed only cause delay as the petitioner defendant is tenant who is in occupation of the suit schedule property. 8. The documents, i.e., the income tax returns sought to be produced by the petitioners-defendants for proving the rents pertaining to the year 2002 and 2010 are completely irrelevant to the case at hand, as the respondent-plaintiff filed suit for eviction from the suit schedule property and for recovery of arrears of rent commencing from November 2013 onwards to 15.08.2015. The income tax returns irrespective of admissibility pertain to 2002-2003 and 2010-2011. 9. The petitioners-defendants have not been able to show any valid ground to meddle with order of the trial Court. The documents sought by the petitioners-defendants do not relate to the relevant period, rent commencing from November 2013 onwards to 15.08.2015. The application on the face of it has been filed with the ulterior purpose of drawing self-arrived inferences and to do fishing and roving enquiry by seeking documents, which are not even relevant for the disposal of the suit. The filing of irrelevant documents would not only cause delay, but also widen the scope of the trial of the suit if the petition for receiving 5 document is allowed. It is submitted that the present application is frivolous and without any merits and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 24.01.2025 siva 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2701 AND 2729 OF 2024 Date: 24.01.2025 siva