IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 694 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 14-02-2025 passed in lA.No.1571 of 2024 in OS.No.245 of 2018 on the file of the Family Court - cum - VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. Between: 1. Adapala Anjanidevi, W/o late Venugopal Aged 75 years, R/o. D.No.263- 131, Bhakthavatsala nagar, NeJIore. 2. Sennamsetty Rambabu,, S/o Kondaiah, Aged 55 years, R/o. Revenue Colony, Kurnool Road, Ongolb. 3. Bachhu Satish Krishna,, S/o Sarabheswara Rao, Aged 46 years, R/o. D.N0.23-1/3-2A, Gandhi Road, Ongole. ...PETITIONERS / PETITIONERS / PLAINTIFF AND Sarikonda Raviraju,, S/o Srinivasaraju, Aged 42 years, R/o. Bytamanjuluru village, J.Panguluru Mandal, Prakasam District. ...RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT < r Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI Counsel for the Respondents : The Court made the following ORDER : r- THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.694 OF 2025 ORDER: The petitioners herein, who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.245 of 2018, filed the suit for cancellation of the decree in O.S.No.307 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior civil Judge, Ongole, dated 03.08.2007 and consequential EP proceedings in E.P.No.65 of 2008 and Court sale dated 23.06.2010 and to declare the 1®' plaintiff as the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property having validly transferred the same to the 2^^ plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 10.05.2015 and for consequential permanent injunction. 2. The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in the suit, have filed I.A.No.1571 of 2024 in O.S.No.245 of 2018 under Order 13 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. to send for the entire suit record in O.S.No.307 of 2004, which was decreed on 03.08.2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Ongole, on the ground that learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs detected a mistake of not taking necessary steps for sending for the entire suit record in O.S.No.307 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, and the said record is necessary, as the present suit filed for cancellation of the decree and judgment in r 2 O.S.No.307 of 2004 and in order to arrive a just conclusion in the present suit, it is just and expedient to look into the entire suit record in O.S.No.307 of 2004. 3. The respondent-defendant has filed counter and it is asserted in the counter that the petitioners have already examined witnesses and produced documents Exs.AI to A19 certified copies obtained in O.S.No.307 of 2004 and E.P.No.65 of 2008 and the plaintiffs’ evidence was closed and only to delay the cross-examination of D.W.1, the present application is filed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the application filed to call for the original record in O.S.No.307 of 2004. After considering the submissions made by both the parties, the 4. learned trial Court Judge has dismissed the application filed under Order 13 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C., vide order dated 14.02.2025, on the ground that the documents cannot be marked, that cannot be confronted to the witnesses and the petitioners can get all the material record through certified copies and can file before the Court. Assailing the said dismissal of application in I.A.No.1571 of 2024 5. dated 14.02.2025, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, on the ground that the documents in O.S.No.307 of 2004 and the connected Execution Petition f- in E.P.No.65 of 2008 are highly relevant and material to the present suit O.S.No.245 of 2018 to establish the fraud played by the defendant in obtaining ex parte decree, and without perusing the entire record, the trial Court cannot arrive at a just conclusion and it causes prejudice to the petitioners to establish their case and the trial Court has wrongly interpreted the provisions of Order 13 Rule 10 C.P.C., which empowers the Court to call for the records from another Court, if necessary for a just decision. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order dated 14.02.2025 and to direct the Court below to call for the records in O.S.No.307 of 2004 and to arrive at just conclusion of the suit in O.S.No.245 of 2018. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. Point for consideration: Whether the order in I.A.No.1571 of 2024 is perverse or contrary and it is liable to interdict? 8. In this regard, for ease of reference and for facility, it is appropriate to extract the relevant provisions and accordingly the relevant provisions are hereby extracted: Rule 10. Court may send for papers from its own records or frorli other Courts. - I (1) The Court may of its own motion, and may in its discretion upon the application of any of the parties to a suit, send for. i 4 either from its own records or from any other suit or proceedings, and inspect the same. (2) Every application made under this rule (unless the Court otherwise directs) be supported by an affidavit showing how the record is material to the suit in which the application is made, and that the applicant cannot without unreasonable delay or expense obtain a duly authenticated copy of the record or of such portion thereof as the applicant requires, or that the production of the original is necessary for the purposes of justice. (3) Nothing contained in this rule shall be deemed to enable the Court to use in evidence any document which under the law of evidence would be inadmissible in the suit. 9. Under Rule 128 of the A.P. Civil Rules of Practice: An application for the production of records in the custody of court shall specify the particular document required to be produced. Unless it made to appear to the court that the production of the original document is necessary. the party shall be required to obtain and file copies thereof and the original shall not be sent for. If the court dispenses with the affidavit mentioned in Order XIII, rule 10(2) of the code of civil procedure it shall record in writing the reasons for doing so. 5 r 10. On conjoint reading of Order 13 Rule 10(2) read with Rule 128 of the A.P. Civil Rules of Practice here are the conditions that emerge and are outlined: i) the material is required to the suit ii) the applicant cannot obtain a duly authenticated copy without any unreasonable delay or expense or of such portion thereof as the applicant requires, iii) shall specify the particular document required document to be produced iv) and the court shall come to conclusion that the production of the original document is necessary when duly authenticated and certified copies of the same are inadmissible in evidence and will not serve the purpose for which the records are required. 11. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is asserted in order to arrive at a just conclusion in the suit and it is just and expedient to look into the entire suit record of O.S.No.307 of 2004 and connected E.P. record which is material to the suit. In order for the Court to determine whether to send for record, the petitioners-plaintiffs have not stated or asserted in the affidavit the relevance of the entire suit record pertaining to O.S.No.307 of 2004 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, or the petitioners- 12. 6 plaintiffs have stated that the certified copies of the record inadmissible in evidence. The petitioners have filed are this suit for the cancellation of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.307 of 2004. They can also obtain certified copies of the pertinent document and file it in are pleading for the cancellation of the decree and judgment relating to or pertains to the suit O.S.No.307 of 2004, they should exercise caution and obtain and file the relevant record along with the suit. 10(2) of Oder 13 r/w with 128 of Civil rules of Practice i Court. However, when the petitioners-plaintiffs And as seen from the rule It shall appear to the court that the original record i inadmissible in evidence under the Indian IS require and the certified copies are Evidence Act (Bharatiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam). The learned trial Court Judge has dismissed the impugned I.A.No.157 of 2024 vide order dated 14.02.2025 that the copies and can file in the petitioners can get all material record certified court that it indicates that original record is not necessary. On careful reviewing the order of the learned trial 13. Court, it shows that the present application is filed mischievously with an ulterior motive and the petitioners/plaintiffs have not filed the said application for good reason and the Court presumes that It is evident to delay the proceedings as rightly pleaded by the respondent-defendant and to 7 r harass the respondent-defendant, the present applicant is filed and, on careful reviewing the order under challenge, there is no legal flaw to interdict with the trial Court order. Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs of 14. Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) and an amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be payable to the respondent/defendant and an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the District Legal Services Authority and the petitioners shall pay the said amount within a period of two weeks from the date of order, failing which, the trial Court is directed to send the petitioners/plaintiffs to the civil prison for a period of one week and report the compliance to this Court. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case, shall stand closed. r SOI- N.NAGAiynyiA ASSISTANT REGIS^T^R //TRUE COPY// ION OFFICER S To, 1. The Registrar (Judicial) High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The Family Court - cum - VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. The District Legal Service Authority, Prakasam. One CC to Sri. Anup Koushik Karavadi Advocate [OPUC] 2. 3. 4. 5. The section officer VR Section High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 6. THREE CD COPIES PR TAC « HIGH COURT DATED:28/03/2025 ORDER CRP.No.694 of 2025 5f X 0 9 APR 2025 | ^ . Current Section g» DISMISSING THE CRP