APHC010304442019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 2754, 2760 and 2801 of 2019 C.R.P.No.2754 of 2019 Between: 1. MANCHI RAJA, S/O. LATE MANCHI SIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.5/9, POSINA COMPOUND, PRODDATUR TOWN, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. SAGILI NAGABHUSHAN REDDY, S/o. Gangi Reddy, aged about 43 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. Thallamapuram Village, Proddatur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District ...RESPONDENT 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 passed in IA No. 277 of 2019 in O.S. No.210 of 2015 dated 09.07.2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S. No.210 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District, pending disposal of the C.R.P, and pass 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 pleased to extend the interim order passed on 30.09.2019 in C.R.P No. 2754 of 2019, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K MALLIKHARJUNA MOORTHY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. C.R.P.No.2760 of 2019 Between: 1. MANCHI RAJA, S/O. LATE MANCHI SIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.5/9, POSINA COMPOUND, PRODDATUR TOWN, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SAGILI NAGABHUSHAN REDDY, S/o. Gangi Reddy, aged about 43 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. Thallamapuram Village, Proddatur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. ...RESPONDENT 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 passed in IA No. 279 of 2019 in O.S. No.210 of 2015 dated 09.07.2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings in 0.S. No.210 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District, pending disposal of the C.R.P, and pass 3 C.R.P.No.2801 of 2019 Between: 1. MANCHI RAJA, S/O. LATE MANCHI SIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.5/9, POSINA COMPOUND, PRODDATUR TOWN, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. SAGILI NAGABHUSHAN REDDY, S/o. Gangi Reddy, aged about 43 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. Thallamapuram Village, Proddatur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. ...RESPONDENT 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 passed in IA No. 278 of 2019 in O.S. No.210 of 2015 dated 09.07.2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings in 0.S. No.210 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District, pending disposal of the C.R.P, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K MALLIKHARJUNA MOORTHY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 4 Common Order:- Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, in I.A. Nos. 277, 278 and 279 of 2019 in O.S. No. 210 of 2015, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petitions. 2. The docket order dated 09.07.2019 in I.A. No. 277 of 2019 reflects that the petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was allowed by condoning the delay in filing the petition and by receiving the documents dated 08.07.2014, subject to proof and relevancy. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent/defendant filed C.R.P. No. 2754 of 2019. 3. The docket order dated 09.07.2019 in I.A. No. 278 of 2019 reflects that the petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for reopening the plaintiff’s evidence and for marking the documents was allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent/defendant filed C.R.P. No. 2801 of 2019. 4. The docket order dated 09.07.2019 in I.A. No. 279 of 2019 reflects that the petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was allowed, thereby permitting the recall of the respondent/defendant for the purpose of marking the representation/document dated 08.07.2014. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent/defendant filed C.R.P. No. 2760 of 2019. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the suit was filed for specific performance in the year 2015 and that the plaintiff sought to 5 file additional documents after completion of evidence of both the plaintiff and the defendant, when the suit was already posted for arguments. It is further submitted that the representation/document dated 08.07.2014 is only a photocopy and that it was sought to be marked without assigning valid reasons. 6. Though notice was served on the respondent/plaintiff, there is no representation on his behalf. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and perused the record. 8. As seen from the affidavits filed in I.A. Nos. 277, 278 and 279 of 2019, the said documents were confronted to the petitioner/defendant during cross- examination, and he admitted the same. It is further stated that the respondent/plaintiff could not submit the said documents along with the plaint. 9. Considering the above, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge allowed the abovementioned petitions. 10 In view of the admission of the said documents by the petitioner/defendant during his cross-examination by the respondent/plaintiff, when the same were confronted to him, this Court finds no valid reason to interfere with the orders of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, whereby the admitted documents were permitted to be brought on record. 6 11. On these considerations, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 03.12.2025 JLV