IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE j PRESENT 5 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 187 & 190 OF 2025 CRP No.187 of 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Order dated 09/12/2024, passed in LA.No.341 of 2024 in O.S. No. 71 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Madanapalle. Between; Vuppu Ravi Sekhar, S/o. Vuppu Veema Reddy, Aged about 43 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. Veerannagaripajle, Peddathippasamudram Revenue Mandalam. ...PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT AND Pappu Narayana Reddy, S/o. Pappu Vasudeva Reddy, Aged about 73 years, Hindu, R/o. Kayalavandalapalle, Ho. Rangasamudram, P.T.M. Revenue Mandal. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be 4 I pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 71 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Madanapalle, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. P. SARASWATHI Counsel for the Respondent: SRI MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA CRP No, 190 of 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Order dated 09/12/2024, passed in I.A.No.340 of 2024 in O.S. No. 71 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Madanapalle. Between: Vuppu Ravi Sekhar, S/o. Vuppu Veenra Reddy, Aged about 43 years, Hindu Cultivation, R/o. Veerannagaripalle Mandalam. Peddathippasamudram Revenue ...PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT AND Pappu Narayana Reddy, S/o. Pappu Vasudeva Reddy, Aged about 73 years, Hindu, R/o. Kayalavandalapalle, Ho. Rangasamudram, P.T.M. Revenue Mandal. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that ir> the circunrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 71 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civit Judge (Senior Division), Madanapalle. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. P. SARASWATHI Counsel for the Respondent: SRI MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER . « HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 187 OF 2025 and 190 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of I.A.No.341 of 2024 in O.S.No.71 of 2021 by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Madanapalle (for short, 'the trial Court'), filed to receive documents by condoning delay, the petitioner-defendant therein filed the present Civil Revision Petition vide CRP.No.187 of 2025. Similarly, as a consequential order of dismissal passed by the learned trial Court in I.A.No.340 of 2024 in the same suit filed under order XVIII Rule 17 CPC for recall of D.W.1 so as to mark the documents sought to be brought on record, the petitioner/defendant filed CRP No.190 of 2025. 2. The result of CRP No.190 of 2025 would depend upon the result in CRP No.187 of 2025 hence, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order. 3. The respondent/plaintiff filed an Original Suit vide O.S.No.71 of 2021 before the trial Court against the petitioner/defendant herein for recovery of money on the basis of promissory note. Evidence of respondent/plaintiff was closed and the defendant was also examined as D.W.1 and the suit was posted for further evidence of the defendant. At that stage, the petitioner/defendant filed aforesaid two interlocutory a 2 applications inter alia to receive certain documents in evidence as well as to recall D.W.1, under Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) C.P.C. and under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC respectively. Both the above interlocutory applications were dismissed by the learned trial Court by giving reasons that the petitioner/defendant did not take plea relating to the documents now sought to be filed in. his written statement and that he failed to explain how the said documents would be helpful to his case. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the learned trial Court committed error in not receiving the documents sought to be produced and in not recalling D.W.1. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that no illegality was committed by the learned trial Court by passing impugned orders and hence the same may be dismissed. 6. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 7. It is not at all in dispute that the respondent/plaintiff filed the Original Suit for recovery of money basing on promissory note dated 08.02.2019 alleged to be executed by the defendant/petitioner herein. The petitioner/defendant filed his written statement denying the borrowing of money and execution of the suit promissory note. His further defence was that his brother-in-law, who was facing criminal trial on report given by his wife who is sister of the petitioner herein, is 3 behind this litigation- and he got instituted the present suit through the plaintiff/respondent herein. 8. It is not in dispute that the suit is at fag-end of the trial on concluding the recording of evidence of the plaintiff, his witnesses as well as the defendant and sonne of his witnesses. It remains unknown whether he had any more witnesses on his behalf. Now at this stage the application in I.A.No.341 of 2024 to receive three documents namely 1) Original simple mortgage deed dated 27.2.2009 executed by D.W.2- Vuppu Verna Reddy in favour of Eethamukkala Reddappa 2) Original simple mortgage deed dated 20.2.2019 executed by D.W.1, Vuppu Verna Reddy and Vuppu Ravi Sekhar in favour of Sankarappa and 3) originar mortgage discharge receipt dated 16.10.2020 is filed. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter and opposed the petition. 9. Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC is specific that where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power in support of his defence, he shall enter such document in a list and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented.... If such document is not in his possession or power he shall state in whose possession or power it is. 4 Sub-Rule (3) of Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC reads that the document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this Rule but is not so produced, he shall not without leave of the Court, produce or ask the Court to receive the same in evidence on his behalf. 10. Order XIII Rule 1 CPC states that the parties or their pleaders shall produce on or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence in original, where the copies thereof have been filed along with plaint or written statement and that the Court shall receive the documents so produced. However it is controlled by a proviso that the documents have to be accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in such form as the High Court directs. No doubt, the Sub Rule (1) would not apply to the documents produced for the cross- examination of the witnesses of the other party or handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. Rule-3 of Order XIII CPC speaks that the Court may at any stage of the suit reject any document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible by recording the grounds of such rejection. 11. Keeping in view of the above provisions of law the case on hand is to be examined. 12. The petitioner/defendant failed to furnish list of documents much less the documents now sought to be produced along with his written statement. No reason of whatsoever is assigned in the affidavit 5 filed in support of the petition in I.A.No.341 of 2024 as to why he failed to file the documents now sought to be produced on record at the time of filing of written statement or before framing of issues. It is not stated . that those documents now sought to be produced were not in his possession or power by the time of filing of written statement. If that is ■ so, how he got those documents now to produce is not stated. \ 13. Further, the petitioner/defendant failed to explain how the documents now sought to be produced would help his case and in what way they are relevant. The suit is filed for recovery of money basing on promissory note and the documents now sought to be produced are relating to some mortgage deeds in relation to some third party. It is not at all pleaded as defence that the mortgage transaction has any relevancy to the present suit, in his written statement. 14. Though this Court would be liberal in permitting to receive the documents at later stage, in this case, the petitioner/defendant utterly failed in explaining the reasons for the delay in not producing the same along with written statement or at the time of framing issues and failed to explain their relevancy relating to his defence. 15. The learned trial Court by giving cogent reasons dismissed the application and it requires no interference much less under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the CRP No.187 of 2025 ‘ deserves to be dismissed and consequently, the CRP No. 190 of 2025, (( m 6 which is filed only to recall D.W.1 for the purpose of marking the documents sought to be produced, is also to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed at the stage of admission. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand dismissed in consequence. SD/- A. VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / / //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), M-adanapalle. 2. One CC to SMT. P. SARASWATHI, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies Chp CHP HIGH COURT DATED:10/04/2025 COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.187 & 190 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION