IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA twenty fifth day of APRII TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ^ PRESENT the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FIVE JAYASURYA 2570 OF 2n?4 giyiLREVISION PETITinM NO: Petition under Article 227 the order, dated 31.07.2024 2019 by the II Additional Senior of the Constitution of India aggrieved by passed in I.A.No.208 of 2024 in O.S.No.13 of Civil Judge, Kakinada. Between: 2 Hospital StreerJ%^nnaikl!ll?.^KakSada. of Old ...petitioners/defendants AND 1. Checka Satya Nagesh Mohan Business, R/o D.No.36-6-14 6-14, Nalamvari KaWnada.' ^°^sewife, R/o D.No.36- “no 36 e^w'^Naf''''' Sreeramulu, U.N0.36 6-14, Nalamvari Street, Kakinada. TO years. aged 80 years. Business R/o ...RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS jA NO: 1 OF 9n9A Petition under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed i praying that in the circumstances , "" of the petition, the High Court pleased to grant stay of all further file of II Additional Senior Civil may be on the proceedings in O.S.No.13 of 2019 Judge, Kakinada. Counsel for the Petitioners: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following ORDER: SRI P. RAJASEKHAR SRI A/l. SRI ATCHYUT 1 NJSJ CRP_2570_2024 APHC010472022024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] t’ FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 2570 of 2024 I Between: Simhadri Gowri Sankar and Another ...PETITIONER(S) AND Checka Satya Nagesh Mohan and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): I.Mr.P.RAJASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): I.Mr.M.SRI ATCHYUT ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 NJS,J CRP_2570_2024 The Court made the following Order: The present Revision is preferred against the orders dated 31.07.2024 passed in I.A.No.208 of 2024 in O.S.No.13 of 2019 the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. on the file of the Court of 2. The petitioners herein are the defendants in the said suit. The respondents / plaintiffs filed the above said I.A.. under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure file certain documents. (for short ‘C.P.C.’), seeking leave to 3. The said application contending that the affidavit filed i the was resisted by the petitioners / defendants - in support of the said I.A., filed by the clerk of plaintiff IS not valid, that he has no iocus standi to file or give affidavit on owner etc., and that the documents sought to be filed behalf of his are registration extracts which are secondary evidence, without laying foundation application is not maintainable in under Section 65 of the Evidence Act and Law. 4. The learned Trial Court following the decision i Reddamma and Others another', wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court procedureare hand-maid ofjustice and, therefore. in Levaku Pedda V. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma and opined that the rules of even if there is some delay, the Trial Court should have imposed some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself, allowed the application and received the ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 533 3 NJSJ CRP_2570 2024 documents subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility, however on payment of costs of Rs.3,000/-. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, submits that the application in question is lacking in bona fides and sufficient reasons for belated production of documents. He submits that the matter is coming up for cross examination of P.W.1 and at that stage, the additional documents were filed along with an application supported by the affidavit filed by a third party, stated to be the clerk of the respondent /1®* plaintiff. He submits that there is no pleading in the plaint with reference to the documents sought to be filed and no reasons whatsoever were stated as to why the said documents were not filed at the time of institution of the suit. 6. Referring to Order 7 Rule 14 of C.P.C., the learned counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court erred in exercising its discretionary power and allowed the application without sufficient reasons and by recording incorrectly that the matter is coming up for continuation of chief examination, though the suit is coming up for cross examination. He also submits that the decision relied on by the learned Trial Court is not applicable to the facts of the case. Making the said submissions and relying on the decisions in Pratap Srinivasulu Setty v. Pratap Narasimhaiah Setty^ and Ch.Seshaveni v. P.N.Durga Lakshmi ^, the learned counsel seeks to allow the Revision Petition by setting aside the order under revision. ^ 2024 see Online AP 301 ^2024 see Online AP 2161 4 NJS, J CRP_2570_2024 The learned counsel for the respondents / plaintiffs, on the other hand, submits that there is nothing wrong on the part of the plaintiffs in filing affidavit of the clerk in support of the I.A.; that the certified copies 7. are sought to be filed view of the additional written statement filed by the He submits that the matter i in petitioners / defendants. IS coming up for further chief examination and marking of documents. He also contends that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners / defendants as the documents iin question were received subject to proof, relevancy etc. and the learned Trial Court was right in in the interest of justice. He exercising its discretion to allow the application, also submits that the decisions relied petitioners are not applicable to the fact situation on the decisions in Kapil Kumar Sharma Another on by the learned counsel for the of the present case. Relying V. Lalit Kumar Sharma & B.Mallikarjuna Reddy v. G.Satyanarayana v. M.Shankar', the learned counsel the Revision Petition. G.V.Subba Reddy ® and urges for dismissal of 8. This Court has considered the submissions material on record. made and perused the 9. On an appreciation of the rival submissions, to be examined by this Court is : Whether the order under revision is liable to be interfered with in the tacts and circumstances of the case? the only point which needs '(2013) 14 see 612 " 2007 (3) ALD 525 '2001(1) ALT 365 5 NJS,J CRP 2570_2024 Assailing the order under challenge, the learned counsel for the petitioners, as noted above inter alia contended that the application as filed with the supporting affidavit of the clerk of the 1®* respondent / plaintiff could not have been entertained by the learned Trial Court. Though the said contention appears to be valid at the first blush, for the said reason, the application may not be rejected. In the present case, the affidavit is filed by respondent / plaintiff and in G.Satyanarayana’s case referred to supra, the learned Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, inter alia, opined that there is no legal bar, to give the affidavit either by some clerk of the counsel or by some third party, on behalf of the party, who is filing the petition and who should give the affidavit in support of a particular interlocutory application, depends upon the facts peculiar in each 10. the clerk of the 1 case. In B.Mallikarjuna Reddy’s case, though another learned Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh opined that the practice of counsel or clerk giving affidavit should not be permitted, unless and until facts specified within their knowledge and domain. In the facts and circumstances of the said case, the learned Judge was inclined to interfere with the order of the Trial Court dismissing the application for restoration of the suit on the premise that the affidavit of the plaintiff was not filed in support of the said application. Be that as it may. 11. are In the present case, the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., was not filed by the plaintiff and the same is not fatal nor can be a ground to reject the 12. 6 NJS,J CRP_2570_2024 application. Therefore, the contentions advanced the petitioners in this regard are rejected. by the learned counsel for 13. Insofar as the contention that the application in question was filed when the suit is coming up for Court, the matter is at the stage of further chief true that no specific reasons documents, which cross examination, as seen from the order of the Trial examination of P.W.1. It is were stated in the I.A., in question as to why the are now sought to be filed, could not be filed at the time institution of the suit. However, Order 7 Rule of 14 (3) of C.P.C., enables the of the Court and in the present exercising the discretion vested in it, allowed the plaintiff to file documents with the leave the learned Trial Court case. application in question. 14. In Kapil Kumar Sharma s case, taking into consideration that the cross examination had not yet commenced, the Hon’ble the order passed by the Division Bench Supreme Court set aside of the Delhi High Court, confirming the orders of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant’s application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of C.P.C. seeking leave to file additional documents, appellant’s application and directed The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the that the additional documents consideration, subject to proof thereof. filed by the appellant be taken up for 15. In Levaku Pedda Reddamma’s case referred to supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the appeal filed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against the orders passed at Amavarathi, affirming the order 7 NJS, J CRP_2570_2024 passed by the Trial Court refusing to permit the petitioner to produce the additional documents under Order 8 Rule 1 of C.P.C., allowed the appeal inter alia opining that the Trial Court as well as the High Court have gravely erred in law in not permitting the petitioner / appellant to produce the documents, the relevance of which can be examined by the Trial Court on the basis of evidence to be led, but to deprive a party to the suit not to file documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice. The said decision supports the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents. Further, though there is no dispute with regard to the proposition reiterated in Pratap Srinivasulu Setty’s case (referred to supra) to the effect that adducing of further evidence, without pleading in the plaint, is not permissible, no such plea was taken in the counter filed to the application in question. Further, the decision in Ch.Seshaveni is also not applicable, wherein, in the facts of the said case, the learned Judge, is not inclined to interfere with the orders of the Trial Court dismissing the application to receive 16. the documents at the stage of arguments. In the case on hand, as noted earlier, the learned Trial Court, allowed 17. the application on payment of costs while opining that the defendants will have an ample opportunity to rebut the evidence by producing evidence on their side, as the defendants’ evidence is yet to commence. It received the documents subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility. 8 NJS, J CRP_2570_2024 Considering the matter in the light of the well settled legal position that Rules of procedure are hand-maid of justice and having found illegality or perversity in the order under challenge, this Court holds that case is made out for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution The point is answered accordingly. In the result, the Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. As all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. shall stand closed. 18. that there is no no of India. 19. a sequel. / g hel^naidu ASSISTANTS SECTraN'^OFFICER ^<^STRAR //TRUE COPY// To 1. The II Additional Senior Civil 2. One CC to SRI P. RAJASEKHAR, 3. One CC to SRI M. SRI ATCHYUT, 4. Two CD Copies Judge, Kakinada. Advocate [OPUC] Advocate [OPUC] Chp HIGH COURT DATED:25/04/2025 ORDER CRP.No.2570 of 2024 X t DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION 7.