APHC010097472020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos:651 and 668 of 2020 Civil Revision Petition No:651 of 2020 Between: 1. B SUBBA REDDY, S/O LATE B. DORASWAMY KTDDY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION R/O BALAGANGANAPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, G.D. NELLORE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. N BEEKI REDDY, S/O N. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION R/O LAKSHRNIPURAMILDGE, N.R. PURAM POST, S.R.PURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 2. KALEPALLI KESAVULU REDDY, S/O K. NAGI REDDY VUSI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION R/O SUPARAVA RAJA PURAM VILLAGE, BALAGAGANAPALLI POST, S.R.PURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 3. KALEPALLI SIDDA REDDY DIED, A 4. A MALLESWARI MALLEMMA, W/O A. BHASKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/0 NO.9, KRISHNA MURTHY PUNY SRINILAYA, CHINNARAJA SWAMY BADAVANE-FO3R.ITHI NAGARA, CHIKK BANVARA, BANGALORE -9C, KARNATAKA STATE 5. PALI PUSHPA, W/O P. KODANDA REE-IDY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, KRISHNAMPALLI VILLAGE, S.S. KONDA VS,J C.R.P Nos.651and 668 of 2020 2 POST, G.D.NELLORE CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to allow the C.R.P. by setting aside the Order and Decree dt. 02-04- 2019 passed in I.A.No.918/2018 in OS No. 152/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, Chittoor District and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in the suit 0.3.No. 152/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Puttur pending disposal of the above CRP and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M L NEELIMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KALLA TULASI DURGAMBA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 668/2020 Between: 1. B.SUBBA REDDY, S/O LATE B. DORASWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, CCC- CULTIVATION R/O BALAGANGANAPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, G.D. NELLORE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. N BEEKI REDDY, S/O N. NARAYAIV. READY, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, 0CC- CULTIVATION R/O LAKSHMIPURAM VILLAGE, N.R. PURAM POST, S.R.PURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 2. KALEPALLI KESAVULU REDDY, S/O K. MAGI REDDY VUSI P.E.DDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC--CULTIVATION R/O VS,J C.R.P Nos.651and 668 of 2020 3 SUPARAVA RAJA RI-JRAM VIILAGE, BALAGAGANAPALLI POST,.S.R.PURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 3. KALEPALLI SIDDA REDDY DIED, A 4. A MALLESWARI ALIAS MALLEMMA, W/O A. BHASKAR REDDY, AGED ABOTH- 28 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/0 NO.9, KRISHNA MURTHY PUNY SRINILAYA, CHINNARAJA SWAMY BADAVANE MARUTHI NAGARA, CHIKK BANVARA, BANGALORE-9,0, KARNATAKA STATE 5. POLL PUSHPA, , W/O P. KODANDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, KRISHNARNPALLI S.S. KONDA POST, G.D.NELLC. CHITTOOR DISTRICT (RESPONDENTS 2,4 AND 5 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ABOVE CRP) ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to allow the C.R.P. by setting aside the Order and Decree dt. 02-04-2019 passed in I.A.No. 917/2018 in OS No. 152/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, Chittoor District and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M L NEELIMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VS,J C.R.P Nos.651and 668 of 2020 4 The Court made the following Common Order: The present Civil Revision Petitions are preferred by the 1st defendant, who is the petitioner herein, being aggrieved by the docket orders dated 02.04.2019 passed in I.A. Nos.917 and 918 of 2024 in O.S.No.152 of 2014 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Puttur. 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are as follows: a) The petitioner is the 1st defendant in the suit in O.S.No.152 of 2014 filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff seeking permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property in an extent of Ac.1.35 ½ cents covered in Survey No.80F and to an extent of Ac.0.47 cents in Survey No.78/6A of the Venugopalapuram Village of S.R. Puram Mandal. The petitioner claims title over the suit schedule property under a Registered Sale deed dated 06.01.1988 from one Boggala Chenga Reddy and others. b) In the said suit, the petitioner herein/1st defendant has filed written statement inter alia contending that the defendant Nos.2 and 3 are in possession and enjoyment of the said lands which is part and parcel of the suit schedule property and that he has purchased Ac.2-00 in Survey No.80 of Venugopalapuram Village Accounts from K. Gangi Reddy, S/o. Bodi Reddy, which is on the west of the suit schedule property and as well as an extent of Ac.0-31 cents in Survey No.78/3, Ac.0-13 cents in Survey No.76/4 and 1/4th share in Survey No.78/7 along with trees and also other lands situated in Durgarajupuram Village Accounts under a Registered VS,J C.R.P Nos.651and 668 of 2020 5 Sale Deed dated 12.05.1975 and since then, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and the revenue authorities have also issued old ryot pass book, pattadar pass book, title deed and also 1-B account. 4. In the said suit, the petitioner herein along with two others filed two Interlocutory Applications vide i) I.A No:918 of 2018 under Order VIII Rule 3(A) and Section 151 of C.P.C seeking to receive the documents mentioned in the list of documents, enabling the petitioner herein/1st petitioner therein/1st defendant to mark the same and to prove his case. ii) I.A No:917 of 2018 under Order XVIII Rule 17 and Section 151 of C.P.C seeking recall of DW1 i.e., petitioner herein/1st petitioner therein/1st defendant to enable DW1 to mark the documents. 5. The said I.A Nos:918 and 917 of 2018, were dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide docket orders dated 02.04.2019. The reasons for the dismissal, were as follows: <…relevancy of the documents are not specifically explained in the petition= and <in view of the orders passed in I.A No.918 of 2018 (Document petition), this petition is dismissed= respectively. Challenging the said docket orders dated 02.04.2019, the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel representing the respondent. VS,J C.R.P Nos.651and 668 of 2020 6 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the affidavit contents in I.A Nos:918 and 917 of 2018 have argued that though the petitioner herein/1st defendant therein has already taken a stand in the written statement stating that he has purchased Ac.2-00 in Survey No.80 of Venugopalapuram Village, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the said I.A. No:918 of 2018 on the sole ground that the petitioner herein failed to explain the relevancy of the documents to be marked and subsequently, I.A No.917 of 2018 was also dismissed, in view of the dismissal of the I.A No.918 of 2018. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner/1st defendant has relied on the decision of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3427 of 2020 between Sugandhi vs. P.Rajkumar1 wherein it is held as under: <9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the documents under sub- rule (3).= 1 (2020) 10 SCC 706 VS,J C.R.P Nos.651and 668 of 2020 7 The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on a decision of this Court dated 06.12.2024 in Civil Revision Petition Nos.353, 346 and 330 of 2023 wherein it held as under: <16. The Honourable Supreme Court in K.K. Velusamy vs. N.Palanisamy held that if a document is sought to be filed at a belated stage is relevant and helps the Court in adjudication, such documents can be received in evidence. A similar view was taken by Hon?ble Supreme Court in Sugandhi vs. P.Rajkumar and Levaku Pedda Reddamma and Others vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supported the order impugned. 10. Admittedly, on a perusal of the written statement filed by the petitioner herein/1st defendant in the suit, it can be observed as under: <13. This defendant submits that for property and valid consideration of Rs.3,000/- he had purchased Ac.2-00 in S.No.80 of Venugopalapuram Village Accounts from K.Gangi Reddy S/o. Bodi Reddy, which is on the west of the suit schedule property, Ac.0.31 cents of land in S.No.78/3, Ac.0.13 cents in S.No.76/4 and 1/4th share in S.No.78/7 along with trees and also other lands situated in Durgarajupuram Village Accounts under a registered sale deed dt.12-5-1975 and since then this defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and the revenue authorities have also issued old ryot pass book, pattadar pass book, title deed and also 1-B Account. Plaintiff herein without any manner of right, title, interest or possession and by suppressing the material facts to filed the above suit.= VS,J C.R.P Nos.651and 668 of 2020 8 9. It is relevant to extract Order VIII Rule 3(A) of C.P.C and Order XVIII Rule 17 of C.P.C and the same are under: ORDER VIII RULE 3(A) 3A. Denial by the defendant in suits before the Commercial Division of the High Court or the Commercial Court.4 (1) Denial shall be in the manner provided in sub-rules (2), (3), (4) and (5) of this Rule. (2) The defendant in his written statement shall state which of the allegations in the particulars of plaint he denies, which allegations he is unable to admit or deny, but which he requires the plaintiff to prove, and which allegations he admits. (3) Where the defendant denies an allegation of fact in a plaint, he must state his reasons for doing so and if he intends to put forward a different version of events from that given by the plaintiff, he must state his own version. (4) If the defendant disputes the jurisdiction of the Court he must state the reasons for doing so, and if he is able, give his own statement as to which Court ought to have jurisdiction. (5) If the defendant disputes the plaintiff?s valuation of the suit, he must state his reasons for doing so, and if he is able, give his own statement of the value of the suit. Order XVIII Rule 17 17. Court may recall and examine witness.4The Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examined and may (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit. VS,J C.R.P Nos.651and 668 of 2020 9 10. In the opinion of this Court, as the petitioner herein/1st defendant has already taken a stand while filing his written statement itself that he is possession and enjoyment of the said property by way of a Registered Sale Deed dated 12.05.1975 bearing Document No.1283 of 1975 and however, as the said documents were mixed up with some other papers, the petitioner herein/1st defendant could not file the same at the earliest point of time, but now he has obtained the 1-B account and Adangal in the month of October, 2018. The documents in question are crucial for substantiating the petitioner?s possession and enjoyment of the property, which is the crucial issue in the suit. As such the petitioner filed the present application i.e., I.A No.918 of 2018 at this belated stage. 11. Upon considering the arguments and in the light of the decisions referred to above supra, this Court opines that the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the applications solely on the >relevancy of the documents are not specifically explained? and the documents sought to be marked are indeed relevant to the adjudication the matter and are more particularly necessary for the petitioner to prove his case and further this Court is of the view that the delay in filing these documents does not cause any substantial prejudice to the respondent/plaintiff and documents can be received in evidence in the interest of justice. 12. Therefore, this Court is of the firm opinion that the impugned docket orders dated 02.04.2019 are liable to be set aside. The learned Trial Court is VS,J C.R.P Nos.651and 668 of 2020 10 directed receive the list of documents filed by the petitioner herein/1st defendant in I.A No.918 of 2018 and further recall DW1 in I.A No.917 of 2018 to mark the documents mentioned in I.A No.918 of 2018. 13. These Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :17.10.2025. Ksj