APHC010417232025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2128/2025 Between: 1. KANDIMALLA NAGESWARA RAO, S/O VEERA RAGHAVAIAH AGED 72 YRS, BUSINESS, R/O D NO. 4-49-13/2 1ST LANE, VIJAYAPURI COLONY,JKC COLLEGE ROAD, GUNTUR ...PETITIONER AND 1. GARIKAPATHI SIDDHARTHA, S/o Subbarao Aged 35 Yrs, Doctor R/o Ediapadu village and Mandal Palnadu 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 tomay be urged at the time of hearing, the civil revision petition may be allowed by setting aside the Order dated 04-07-2025 passed in lA No. 48 of 2025 in OS No. 26 of 2022 on the file of The Hon'ble Additional Senior Civil Judge , Narasaraopet and to receive the photostat copy of the agreement of sale dated 12-06-2021 as secondary evidence by allowing lA No. 48 of 2025 in OS No. 26 of 2022 on the file of The Hon'ble Additional Senior Civil Judge , Narasaraopet IA NO: 1 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 pleased stay all further proceedings in OS No. 26 of 2022 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge Narasaraopet pending disposal of the main civil revision petition 2 RRR,J C.R.P.No.2128 of 2025 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MAHATHI SAAVERI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. G SRI HARSHA 3 RRR,J C.R.P.No.2128 of 2025 The Court made the following Order: The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.26 of 2022 against the petitioner herein before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopet, for recovery of money, on the basis of five (05) promissory notes. 2. The defense of the petitioner, in the Suit, was that, there was an earlier agreement of sale under which the petitioner had agreed to sell one of his properties to the respondent. As such, the said property was mortgaged with a bank. The respondent sought security for the money advanced by him and five (05) promissory notes were executed by the petitioner as security, for that sale consideration. It is stated that, subsequently, the property was brought to sale by the bank and was purchased by the wife of the respondent. Allegations are made as to the adequacy of consideration in that transaction. The petitioner, in order to demonstrate his case, had sought the production of the original of the alleged agreement of sale said to have been executed, on 12.06.2021, from the respondent herein. Subsequently, I.A.No.525 of 2024, was filed to call upon the respondent to produce the said document and the Trial Court is said to have passed an Order, directing the respondent to produce the original registered sale deed, dated 12.06.2021, failing which, adverse inference would be drawn. The respondent took the stand that he does not have the original with him. 3. The petitioner again moved I.A.No.48 of 2025, seeking leave of the Court to mark a copy available with the petitioner, as secondary evidence. The 4 RRR,J C.R.P.No.2128 of 2025 contention of the petitioner is that, the copy available with the petitioner, would show that, the respondent had made an endorsement, on the document that the original is available with the respondent. 4. The respondent resisted the application contending that, the agreement of sale, dated 12.06.2021, was not executed by him and would be a fabrication. He further contended that, secondary evidence of this nature would not be permissible and such documents should not be marked. 5. The Trial Court, went into the question of whether the document is registered or unregistered. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that, the document is not a registered document. However, the learned Trial Court Judge, went into the contradiction between the finding given, in I.A.No.525 of 2024, which is a registered document and the contention of the petitioner that it is an unregistered document. The Trial Court went into the question of how copies of document can be manipulated without going into the question of whether this particular document has been subjected to any manipulation. Be that as it may, the Trial Court took the view that the petitioner can get a certified copy from the registration office, if the agreement of sale, dated 12.06.2021, is a registered document. 6. On the basis of these findings and directions, the Trial Court dismissed the application, on 04.07.2025. 7. Aggrieved by the said Order of Dismissal, the petitioner has moved this Court, by way of the present Civil Revision Petition. 5 RRR,J C.R.P.No.2128 of 2025 8. Heard Sri Mahathi Saaveri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Sri Harsha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 9. The direction of the Trial Court, that a certified copy can be obtained, if the document is registered, is clearly a contradictory finding and direction. When it is the admitted case, on the facts, that the document is not a registered document, it is not clear as to how the Trial Court had come to the conclusion that it may be a registered document. However, the observation and direction that a certified copy should be obtained, if the document is registered, makes it clear that the learned Trial Court Judge has not applied her mind to the case. 10. In the circumstances and in view of the fact that the learned Trial Court Judge did not go into the issues raised by either side, it would be appropriate to set aside the Order and remand the matter back to the learned Trial Judge, for an appropriate decision on the issues raised by both sides. 11. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Date:07.11.2025 KPV 6 RRR,J C.R.P.No.2128 of 2025 264 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITON No:2128 of 2025 07.11.2025 KPV