1 APHC010614802025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3163] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3169/2025 Between: 1. BOLLA VEERA VENKATA NARAYANA, S/O CHINA BRAHMANUDU, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O. D. NO.4-162, TATIPAKA VILLAGE, RAZOLE MANDAL, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. NEKKANTI ANANTHA LAKSHMI, W/o Venkateswara Rao, aged 50 years, R/o. Bhairavapatnam Village, Mandavalli Mandal, Krishna 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 toBeing aggrieved by the Docket Order dt. 28.08.2025 passed in I.A. No. 661 of 2025 in O.S. No.147 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Learned Junior Civil Judge, Kaikaluru, the above named petitioner prefers this memorandum of Civil Revision Petition for the following among other 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 147 of 2020 on the 2 file of the Court of Learned Junior Civil Judge, Kaikaluru, pending disposal of the main CRP and to pass 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 may be pleased to vacate the Interim stay, which is granted in I.A.No. 1/2025 in C.R.P. No. 3169/2025 dated 21.11.2025 by this Hon’ble Court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. T V V KOTESWARA RAO 3 The Court made the following: ORDER: Challenging the order dated 28.08.2025 in I.A.No.661 of 2025 in O.S.No.147 of 2020 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Kaikaluru, whereby the petition filed under Order VIII, Rule 1(a)(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) to receive the documents in question was dismissed, the present civil revision petition is filed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The suit was filed against him for recovery of money on the foot of a promissory note. The defendant has taken a plea of forgery. The suit promissory note was signed in Telugu language by the defendant as it appears from it. The defendant has taken a plea that he is in the habit of singing only in English language and not in Telugu language. Therefore, he sought to produce a registered settlement deed which was executed by him and signed by him in English language. The trial Court dismissed the said petition and refused to receive the said document in evidence. 4. Upon considering the impugned order passed by the trial Court, this Court finds no legal flaw or infirmity in the order. When the suit is filed for recovery of money on the foot of a promissory note and when the defendant has taken a plea that he is only in the habit of signing in English language and not in Telugu language, the said settlement deed is not relevant for the purpose of deciding the said controversy. Therefore, this Court finds no valid ground to interfere in the present revision petition to set aside the impugned order. 4 5. Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J. Date: 19.12.2025 ARR 5 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3169/2025 Date: 19.12.2025 ARR