APHC010309362025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Between: 1. NISHTALA SUBRAMANYA SATYA VENKATA KAMESWARI SANYASI RAO, S/O VENKATA RAMA SUBRAHMANYA SARMA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, INGILAPALLI VILLAGE, DATTIRAJERU MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 1. DONKADA VENKATA RAMA GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, DONKADA HARI HARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 51 NAKKAVANI PALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM 2. PILLA VEERA VENKATA PYDI SATYA VIJAYA KUMAR, S/O APPALASWAMY NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. MAHALAKSHMI NAGAR, RING ROAD, VIZIANAGARAM TOWN. Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, pleased to set aside the docket Order dt 28.03.2025 in I.A.No. 788 of 2024 in O.S.No. 407 of 2014 in the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram IA NO: 1 OF 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1448/2025 NISHTALA SUBRAMANYA SATYA VENKATA KAMESWARI SANYASI RAO, S/O VENKATA RAMA SUBRAHMANYA SARMA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, INGILAPALLI VILLAGE, DATTIRAJERU MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND DONKADA VENKATA RAMA RAO, REPRESENTED BY HIS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, DONKADA HARI HARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 51 NAKKAVANI PALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM-13. PILLA VEERA VENKATA PYDI SATYA VIJAYA KUMAR, S/O APPALASWAMY NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. MAHALAKSHMI NAGAR, RING ROAD, VIZIANAGARAM TOWN. ...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 docket Order dt 28.03.2025 in I.A.No. 788 of 2024 in O.S.No. 407 of 2014 in the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram RC,J CRP.No.1448 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI NISHTALA SUBRAMANYA SATYA VENKATA KAMESWARI SANYASI RAO, S/O VENKATA RAMA SUBRAHMANYA SARMA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, INGILAPALLI VILLAGE, DATTIRAJERU MANDAL, ...PETITIONER RAO, REPRESENTED BY HIS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, DONKADA HARI HARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 51-8-10/4, PILLA VEERA VENKATA PYDI SATYA VIJAYA KUMAR, S/O APPALASWAMY NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. PLOT NO.1, MAHALAKSHMI NAGAR, RING ROAD, VIZIANAGARAM TOWN. ...RESPONDENT(S): praying that in the the High Court may be docket Order dt 28.03.2025 in I.A.No. 788 of 2024 in O.S.No. 407 of 2014 in the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram. RC,J CRP.No.1448 of 2025 2 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 suit in O.S.No. 407 of 2014 in the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram pending the disposal of Civil Revision Petition. IA NO: 2 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 pleased to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition as there is no any reasons to review the Revision petition and please vacate the stay orders issued on 26.06.2025 by the Hon’ble High Court enabling to continue the trial of O.S.No.407/2014 with IA/788/2024 at the Hon’ble court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Vizianagaram besides establishing the genuineness of the death Certificate and legal heir certificates produced by the Petitioner/Respondent No-1, who is claiming suit Scheduled property or issue order or Crders which is deemed fit in the interest of Justice Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V SRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. DHANA RAJU GUNTU The Court made the following: ORDER Questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 28.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.788 of 2024 in O.S.No.407 of 2014 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 preferred this Civil Revision Petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. RC,J CRP.No.1448 of 2025 3 2. Through the impugned order, the learned trial Judge allowed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order-VII, Rule-14(3) of the Code of civil Procedure for reception of the documents enlisted therein. 3. The prime contention raised by the revision petitioner as could be perceived from the grounds of the revision and contents of the counter filed before the trial court, is that the documents neither being the certified copies nor the originals cannot be received for not satisfying the requirement of section 65(a) to (c) of the Evidence Act, that the petitioner/plaintiff failed to explain the delay for not filing the documents till the year 2024, though they were obtained during the year 2021-2022, that there was no reference of the said document in the plaint and hence cannot be received. 4. Heard Smt. T.V.Sridevi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri Dhana Raju Guntu, learned counsel for respondent no.1 5. Smt. T.V.Sridevi, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the grounds of revision and contents of the counter filed before the trial court would further contend that the order impugned is very cryptic and the contents of the counter were not at all taken into consideration. She would further contend that a mere look at the order itself would speak volumes that the learned trial Judge allowed the petition in a mechanical fashion. She would further contend that the order impugned is illegal and perverse and the RC,J CRP.No.1448 of 2025 4 same deserves dismissal. She would further contend that the plaintiff was negligent and careless in prosecuting the suit proceedings and therefore, the trial court ought not to have allowed the petition. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition. 6. Sri Dhana Raju Guntu, learned counsel for respondent no.1, would contend that initially a petition was filed for reception of Photostat copies of the documents and that petition was dismissed by the learned trial Judge directing the petitioner to file original documents and pursuantly the petition covered under the impugned orders has been filed and thus the delay is neither willful nor wanton nor due to any negligence on the part of the plaintiff. He would further contend that mere non-mention of the documents in the plaint is not per se fatal to the plaintiff’s endeavour to produce the documents later. He would further contend that the learned trial Judge upon meticulous consideration of the material and relevant law rightly allowed the petition and the said order does not require interference of this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 8. The contentions advanced by both the parties and the pleadings, it emerges that the plaintiff procured the documents now sought to the RC,J CRP.No.1448 of 2025 5 introduced were obtained under Right to Information Act during the year 2021-22. The petition initially filed by him for reception of photo copies of the documents was dismissed and thereupon he preferred Civil Revision Petition vide C.R.P.No.2623 of 2024 before this Hon’ble Court and the same is said to be pending. Thereafter, he filed the petition covered by the impugned orders to receive the documents obtained by him through Right to Information Act. 9. It is fairly settled that the plaintiff has to prove his case by letting in oral and documentary evidence. It is also fairly settled that procedural laws are the handmaid of justice" means that procedural rules serve to facilitate and advance justice, rather than impede it. Procedural law should act as a subordinate tool to help achieve substantial justice, and technicalities should not be used to obstruct the delivery of a just outcome. It is an accepted legal principle that courts should not prevent a party from producing a document on the ground of delay, unless doing so would derail the entire proceedings and necessitate a completely new trial. 10. Bearing in mind the above axiomatic principles of law, the facts and circumstances of the case have to be analysed. 11. Admittedly, there is delay in seeking to receive the documents. However, the same cannot be a ground to prevent the plaintiff from production of documents, which according to him are crucial for establishing RC,J CRP.No.1448 of 2025 6 his claim. It is not as though reception of the documents at this stage would derail the entire proceedings and necessitate a complete new trial. The learned trial Court though did not state the pleadings and contentions of the parties and how the contention of the petitioner was merited, however reached an appropriate conclusion in allowing the petition. Admittedly, the delay caused by a party to the proceedings would cause mental agony and financial loss to his opponent and therefore, the same has to be compensated by awarding costs. 12. The contentions raised by learned counsel for revision petitioner regarding the relevancy and admissibility of the documents cannot be gone into and decided in a petition filed for reception of the documents. The parties are at liberty to agitate the said issues at relevant time before the trial Court. 13. In the above view of the matter, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the order impugned in this Civil Revision Petition. The respondent no.1/plaintiff shall pay to the revision petitioner costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Interim order shall stand vacated. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR