/'• APHC010515962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI SS THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2529 OF 2025 Petition filed 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 present Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the Order dated 28.07.2025 passed in IA.No.180 of 2025 in O.S.No.7 of 2020 pending on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District. Between: K.Guravaiah, S/o.Kamisetti Sankaraiah, aged about 65 No.45/185-35, Asritha Homes, Narasimha Reddy Nagar, Kurnool City, Andhra Pradesh - 518 004. years, R/o.H. ...Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff AND 1. Sri Gurudatta Developers. A Partnership Firm, Rep. by its 4 Partners Kurnool City and Post, Kurnool District. 2. J.Gopalu, S/o.Late J.Chinna Seshaiah Setty, aged about 74 years, Partner of Sri Gurudatta Developers, R/o.H.No.51/920 Bus Stand, Kurnool City, Andhra Pradesh - 518 004. Opposite RTC 3. J.Bhaskar, S/o.Late J.Chinna Seshaiah Setty, aged about 65 years, Partner of Sri Gurudatta Developers, R/o.H.No.51/913-A, Opposite RTC Bus Stand, Kurnool City, Andhra Pradesh - 518 004. 4. J.Sudhakar, S/o.Late J.Chinna Seshaiah Setty, aged about 62 years. Partner of Sri Gurudatta Developers, R/o.H.No.51/967-A7, lllur Nagar, Kurnool City, Andhra Pradesh - 518 003. 5. J.Venkateswara Ravi Prasad, S/o.J.Gopalu, aged about 54 years, Partner of Sri Gurudatta Developers, R/o.H.No.51/936-C, Opposite RTC Bus Stand, Kurnool City, Andhra Pradesh - 518 004. ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition filed 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 stay all further proceedings in O.S. No.7 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Varun Byreddy Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared The Court made the following: APHC010515962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Thursday, The Sixteenth Day of October Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 2529 of 2025 Between: ...Petitioner K. Guravaiah and ...Respondents Sri Gurudatta Developers and others Counsel for the petitioner: 1 .Varun Byreddy Counsel for the respondents: Nil i The Court made the following: 7 2 C.R.P.No.2529 of 2025 ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 28.07.2025 dismissing the petition in I.A.No.180 of 2025 in O.S.No.7 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool filed by the plaintiff under Order VII, Rule 14 C.P.C., to grant leave for filing the following documents by condoning the delay; \. Registered sale deed bearing No.6252/2014, dated 28.08.2014 executed by the respondents No.2 to 5 in favour of Smt. M.Rajeswari. (C ii. Agreement of sale dated 12.08.2010 executed by the respondent No.1 in favour of Smt. Rajeswari along with payment endorsement on the back of first page of agreement of sale.” The revision petitioner / plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 08.12.2010 etc. The respondent No.4 pleaded that he is not authorized to make an endorsement dated 18.12.2010 on the suit agreement of sale, besides pleading that it is forged. The plaintiff further contended that on behalf of the respondent No.1, in a number of other cases, the respondent No.4 received the amount and made similar endorsements on behalf of the firm. One such agreement was dated 12.08.2010 in favour of the daughter of the petitioner for shop No.57, pursuant to which a saJe deed dated 28.08.2014 bearing document No.6252 of 2014 was executed by receiving payment by the respondent No.4. Therefore, the petitioner contends that to prove that the respondent No.4 has the habit of receiving the amount on behalf of the firm and making endorsements, it 2. 3 C.R.P.No.2529of2025 «||| is just and necessary to file these documents in evidence and consequently to grant permission to file the documents. The petition was opposed by the respondent No.5 by filing counter denying the contents in the petition and further reiterating the defence in the written statement. It is pertinent to mention that the contents of the counter do not refer to the material averments relating to the relief in this petition, but, may be due to oversight, the contentions of the other petition relating to amendment of plaint might have been incorporated. The other defendants remained ex parte in the suit. The trial Court heard the learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondent No.5 and dismissed the petition holding that the proposed documents do not pertain to the issue in the suit as they belong to the petitioner’s daughter, but, not the plaintiff. The trial Court is of the view that these documents have no relevancy and admissibility. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed. Notice was not ordered to the respondents No.1 to 4 as they have not contested before the trial Court. However, the notices were sent by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the respondents Nos.1 to 5 and a memo was filed to that effect. Yet, the respondent No.5 not chosen to appear before this Court. 3. \ 4. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The purpose of filing these documents is to prove a fact which is relevant to the fact in issue. Therefore, though the proposed documents are not directly relating to the said agreement of sale, they are very much relevant. The trial Court failed to consider the purpose mentioned by the petitioner, i.e., to prove the facts disputed by the respondent No.5, regarding both competency and actual signature in the endorsement. But, they are crucial for taking decision on the main relief 6. 7. 4 C.R.P.No.2529 of 2025 claimed in the suit. Therefore, dismissal of petition on the grounds stated by the trial Court is erroneous. Since the documents proposed to be filed are very much relevant, an opportunity shall be given to the petitioner. If there is any objection for their admissibility in evidence, the said issue can be answered at the appropriate time when these documents are tendered in evidence. For the present, the petitioner seeks only leave to file the documents on record. For the delay in filing these documents, some terms can be imposed while allowing the petition as endeavor of a Court is to take all such material evidence for better adjudication of matter on merits and not to decline any material evidence on mere technical grounds. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed subject to payment of Rs.1000/- (one thousand rupees only) to the contesting respondent within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the petition stands dismissed without any further order. 8. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurnool, Kurnool District. 2. One CC to Sri Varun Byreddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies BSV sree / \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:16/10/2025 \ \ \ \ ORDER CRP NO. 2529 OF 2025 gT 0 8 NOV 2025 «>» JSQirrint Sectiojjxvj^ ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITIOIN