APHC010689292022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2738/2022 Between: Thalapala Gopi ...PETITIONER AND Syed Aktar and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2809/2022 Between: Thalapala Gopi ...PETITIONER AND Syed Aktar and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GUDI SRINIVASU The Court made the following: 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.R.P.Nos. 2738 and 2809 of 2022 COMMON ORDER:- The Revision Petitions are filed questioning the order dated 26.08.2022 in I.A.Nos.510 and 557 of 2022 in M.V.O.P.No.522 of 2017 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Nellore, which were filed to reopen and receive Insurance Policy No.417054/31/15/0019056958 dated 19.07.2016 for making the same on Petitioner side respectively. 2. Petitioner is Respondent No.1 in M.V.O.P.No.522 of 2017. The M.V.O.P was filed by Respondents 1 to 4 seeking compensation of Rs.7 lakhs on account of the death of Syed Mohammad. The principal defence of the Insurance Company in their counter filed in the MVOP was that no policy was issued to the offending vehicle. The Petitioner, being the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. auto, had filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1 A(3) r/w Section 151 C.P.C to condone the delay in filing the Insurance Policy No. 417054/31/15/0019056958 dated 19.07.2016 and for marking the same on his behalf. The said 3 application was filed along with an application to reopen the case to adduce evidence on behalf of the Petitioner. 3. The said applications were opposed by the Insurance Company i.e. Respondent No.5 on the ground that the Insurance Policy is a fake document. The trial Court dismissed both the applications on the ground that there is a serious dispute with regard to the genuineness of the policy. Hence, the present revision petitions. 4. Heard Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel for the Respondents. 5. This Court, having heard the counsel for the Petitioner, is of the opinion that when an application is filed with signed affidavit of the Petitioner stating that the insurance policy was issued and original copy of the same was filed there along, the trial Court should not have rejected the same without receiving or putting the said document to trial. At the stage of receiving the documents, the genuineness could not have been gone into by the trial Court. 4 6. Therefore, the impugned order of the trial Court is set aside and the civil revision petitions are allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 20.01.2025 KLP