1 VS,J CRP.No.113 of 2025 APHC010019862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 113/2025 Between: 1. BODDAUPALLI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 11-28-3/72, PRASANTHI NAGAR, RAMIREDDY PET, NARSARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. GUTTA PALLI SIVA PARVATHI, W/O. ASHOK KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 1-11-3, BARAMPET, NARSARAOPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. KANAMARLAPUDI MASTHAN RAO, S/O. KOTESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, C/O. SHOP NO. 119, MAHATMA GANDHI CLOTH MARKET NARSARAOPET. 3. KARUMANCHI MEERAVALI, (NOT NECESSARY PARTY SET EX PARTE IN O.S PROCEEDINGS) ...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 pleased toThe above named Petitioner begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition have been aggrieved by order dated 12-12 2024, in I.A 2 VS,J CRP.No.113 of 2025 No- 2079 OF 2024 IN O.S No 182 OF 2019, on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Narasraopet 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 may be pleased stay all further proceedings pertaining to O.S No 182 of 2019 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narsaraopeta and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K L N SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NEELAM SANKARA RAO The Court made the following: 3 VS,J CRP.No.113 of 2025 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant No.2 aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet, dated 12.12.2024 in I.A.No.2079 of 2024 in O.S.No.182 of 2019, whereby, the Court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.2 under Order VIII Rule 3 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) to receive the documents on behalf of the petitioner/defendant No.2. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: The respondent No.1 herein filed O.S.No.182 of 2019 against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein seeking permanent injunction, restraining them from ever interfering with the suit schedule property. Pending the said suit, the petitioner came to know that a suit in O.S.No.18 of 2019 is pending against the respondent No.1/plaintiff on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, O.S.No.333 of 2020 is pending against the husband of the respondent No.1/plaintiff on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet and that few charge sheets were filed against the respondent No.1/plaintiff and her husband. The petitioner/defendant No.2, with an intention to prove the conduct of the respondent No.1/plaintiff and her husband, filed I.A.No.2079 of 2024 under 4 VS,J CRP.No.113 of 2025 Order VIII Rule 3 of CPC to receive the documents pertaining to the aforementioned suits and charge sheets and for marking of the same. The Court below, vide the impugned order dated 12.12.2024 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.2 on the ground that the proposed documents are irrelevant to the suit and that the petitioner filed the said application only to drag on the proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this revision petition. 3. When this revision petition came up for hearing on 04.03.2025, this Court was pleased to stay all further proceedings pertaining to O.S.No.182 of 2019 on the file of learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopeta. 4. Heard Sri. K.L.N. Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Neelam Sankararao, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 5. Admittedly, O.S.No.182 of 2019 was filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff against the petitioner and the other respondents, seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and the other respondents from interfering with the suit schedule property. Pending the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2079 of 2024 requesting the Court below to receive documents pertaining to civil suits and charge sheets pending against the respondent No.1 and her husband in order to prove their conduct. A perusal of the 5 VS,J CRP.No.113 of 2025 affidavit filed in support of the application would go to show that except stating that petitioner could not file the proposed documents earlier, nowhere it is mentioned as to how the said documents are relevant for effective adjudication of the subject suit that was filed for permanent injunction. Further, there is no whisper as to why the said documents have to be received by the Court below. 6. After perusing the entire material available on record and on a perusal of the impugned order passed by the Court below, this Court is of the opinion that the Court below has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for receiving the aforementioned documents and the same need not be interfered by this Court by invoking its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. In view of the above, this revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:20.11.2025 Gss