APHC010621702025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3309/2025 Between: Datla Lakshmipathi Raju ...PETITIONER AND P Venkata Ramana and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SRINIVAS MANCHANAPALLI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: RNT, J CRP No.3309 of 2025 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3309 of 2025 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri Srinivas Manchanapalli, leaned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. The civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant in the suit O.S.No.473 of 2018 filed by the plaintiffs/respondents and pending in the Court of Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The suit is for eviction of the petitioner from the plaint schedule property and for recovery of damages with interest and for costs. 3. In the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2923 of 2025 with the prayer to issue summons to the District Registrar, Visakhapatnam to produce the prohibited proceedings relating to the plaint schedule property from 2003 to 2008. The application was filed on 06.10.2025. The respondents filed counter to the said application and on consideration, the learned trial Court has rejected I.A.No.2923 of 2025, vide Order dated 04.11.2025. 4. The rejection is on the ground that from perusal of the documents filed before the trial Court Ex.A1 (copies of judgment and decree passed in the previous suit O.S.No.320 of 2010), the 1st plaintiff had gifted the suit schedule property to the 2nd plaintiff even prior to Ex.A1 of that suit. There was no subsequent alienation of the property, and consequently, the learned trial Court was of the view that the proceedings as required by the defendant from the District Registrar were not required to be produced before the said Court and RNT, J CRP No.3309 of 2025 3 those proceedings were not essential for the disposal of the suit. Recording the said reasons, the application was rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the document was summoned from the District Registrar and the document was filed, the plaintiff’s suit would be barred by limitation. 6. On a specific query made to the learned counsel whether such plea of suit being barred by limitation was taken in the written statement before the learned trial Court, he could not show that any such plea was taken before the trial Court in the written statement. 7. Consequently, I do not find any illegality in rejection of I.A.No.2923 of 2025 on the ground and reasons assigned by the learned trial Court. 8. In any case, if any such document the petitioner considers to be necessary or relevant, he may himself file the same before the Court, in accordance with law. The summoning of such document to fill the lacuna in the petitioner’s evidence would not be justified. 9. I do not find any illegality in the order impugned in the civil revision petition. The present civil revision petition is therefore dismissed. 10. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. _______________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date: 28.11.2025 Dsr