V IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAYTHE TWENTYFIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO CIVIL REVISIONPETITIONNO: 328 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Civil Revision Petition filed aggrieved by the docket order dated 28- 11-2024 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kovvur in I.A No. 1072/2024 in O.S No. 299/2016 Between: Gatti Venkatalakshmi, W/o Venkata Ramana, aged 55 R/o D.No.6-36, Bank street, Kadipulanka, Kadiyam Mandal, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ...Petitioner/Plaintiff AND 1. Pasupuleti Kota Satyanarayana, S/o Appa Rao, aged 48, R/o D No. 9- 36, Kattakoteswaram village, Nidadavole Mandal East Godavari District. 2. Pasupuleti Venkata Raju, S/o Apparao, aged 44, R/o D.No.8-68, Kattakoteswaram village, Nidadavole Mandal, East Godavari District. Presently residing at Lakshmi Rama studio Digital photography And video, Ramalayam Center, kadiyapulanka, Kadiyam mandal. East Godavari district. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 202.*; 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S No. 299 of 2016 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kovvur pending disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. P VIVEK Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following order: 1 • APHC010058132025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 328/2025 Between; Gatti Venkatalakshmi ...PETITIONER AND Pasupuleti Kota Satyanarayana and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: ...RESPONDENT(S) 1.P VIVEK Counsel for the Resp6ndent(S): 1. The Court made the following: ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by the docket order dated 28.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.1072 of 2024 in O.S. No.299 of 2016 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior), Kovvur (for short “the trial Court”). St 2. The present impugned I.A.No.1072 of 2024 was filed by the 1 defendant/1 respondent herein before the trial Court under Order VIII Rule 3A i 2 and Section 151 CPC seeking to receive the document and condone the delay in " filing of those documents. The same was allowed, which reads as under:. “On perusal of counter except formal denial, no other plea for not marking document. Hence, the petition is allowed subject to proof and relevance. ” 3. Heard Sri P. Vivek, learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material on record. 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein has filed O.S No.299 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) against the respondents herein/defendants for grant of possession of plaint schedule property by evicting the defendants/respondents herein from the plaint schedule property and also to pass a decree directing the respondents to pay rent @ 1000/- for the plaint schedule property during pendency of the suit. While so, the 1®‘ defendant filed written statement. He submits that the petitioner herein is the sister of the respondents. The evidence of plaintiff’s was closed on 28.10.2024 and after closure of plaintiff’s evidence, the 1®‘ respondent/1 defendant had filed the present impugned I.A. and the same was allowed without assigning any reasons. 5. Learned counsel further submits that, the trial Court ought to have that the 1®* respondent did not assign any reason in the affidavit filed along with I.A as to why the document could not be filed along with the written statement and no sufficient cause has been shown for abrupt delay of nearly 8 years. He submits that, the trial Court ought to have seen that the document cannot be seen 3 received for the mere asking and it is only when sufficient cause is shown for failure on the part of the defendant in not filing the said document along with written statement, the discretion can be exercised to receive the said document. Learned counsel mainly argued that the trial Court ought to have observed that object of amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to provision under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) w.e.f 1.7.2002 was to curb phenomenal delays in the procedural aspects leading to procrastination of the proceedings before the Civil Court and as such ought to have dismissed the application of the 1®‘ respondent due to the abnormal delay of 8 years in filing the said document by the 1 respondent. St 6. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Ravi Satish versus Edala Durga Prasad and others^ , wherein the Apex Court held that: “.. .Under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC, a document, which ought to be produced before the Court by the defendant under Rule 1, but is not so produced shall not, without leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. Sub-rule (3) was inserted by Act 22 of 2002 with effect from 01-07-2002. As such, reliance placed by the petitioner herein on the Division Bench judgment in K.V. Subramanyam (1 supra), rendered prior to the amendment aforementioned, is of no avail. 7. In Dugaputi Sudhakar Reddy (3 supra), this Court held that receipt of documents under sub-rule (3) of Rule 1-A Order VIII was subject to the satisfaction of the Court, that the reasons given must be satisfactory, that the leave of the Court shall riot be for the mere asking, that such reason must be justifiable and prima facie believable and also be capable of rendering justice by deciding all the issues, particularly in a suit for partition. I In Dugaputi Sudhakar Reddy (3 supra), the trial Court had exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant and had allowed the application tiled to receive the documents. This Court, in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction, had chosen not to interfere with exercise of such discretion. As observed by this Court, in Dugaputi Sudhakar Reddy (3 supra), the trial Court is not required to receive the documents for the mere asking and it is only when sufficient cause is shown for failure on the part of the applicant in not filing the said documents along with written statement, would the Court below be justified, that too for reasons be recorded in writing, in exercising its discretion to receive documents. 8. Dasuputruni Suryanarayana (2 supra), was again a case where the Court below had 2009 see OnLine AP 978 mpi 4 f tT n"" o"”' °' filed after the written statement was ® upon to examine wMher me p ssessory agreement was required to be charged as a sale deed whether it rpnnirpri registration and whether the application filed to receive documents was belated and was filed mfma clrt hTd mer* Bench obse^d Ita, the trial Court had merely allowed the application to receive the documents that the Question as to whether the document was a sale agreement or a possessory agrrern^n^ was S required to be gone into at that stage and that the learned Judge did^ot^commit any error much lass a ,unsd,ct,onal error, in allowing ,ha application to moeivel doolen^rto (ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on an order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad passed in CRP No.5266 of 2011 dated 22.10.2013, wherein it was held that: prasen.^^^ from 1.7,2oS'Tha‘4iSwim'wl,lch?hole Rtllef der VII CPC which on a literal interpretation appears to vest unlimited dkr'rotinn ragulras to be integrated so as to advance the Sahon^'fh'eSunbeSre whS the defendant produced the said documents after filing of the written statement therefore needs to be circumspect in examining whether proper reasons are assigned “7^0 dSSjnt for nS producing the documents along with the written statement. ^ defendant for not effect from m'jlfi-S!’ substituted by Act 46 of 1999 with upon thedu2^rrthTsS,:SraS^^ said 7. Perused the material on record. 5 f 8. In the present case, the suit was filed before the trial Court for grant of possession over the plaint schedule property. The evidence of plaintiff’s was closed on 28.10.2024 and the present impugned I.A No. 1072 of 2024 was filed on 22.11.2024 seeking to receive additional document i.e., a Will dated 18.8.2015. On a perusal of the affidavit, it does not contain any reasons as to why the document is to be received at the belated stage. The will also said to have been executed in the year 2015. Further, when the document is to be filed at belated stage, at least some reasons have to be offered, but the affidavit does not contain any reasons. Moreover, the trial Court, in the impugned order. without discussing and without assigning any reasons, has allowed the application. Prima facie, it is observed that there are laches on the part of the trial Court while disposing of the said Interlocutory Application. Therefore, this Court is- inclined to allow the revision petition by setting aside the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned docket order dated 28.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.1072 of 2024 in O.S. No.299 of 2016 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior), Kovvur, is hereby set aside. Further, the matters is remanded back to the trial Court for fresh consideration by affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both sides and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four (04) weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. f 6 10. Since no reasons are assigned by the trial Court in the impugned ' order and since the matter is being remanded back this Court feels that notice to respondents is not necessary. 11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kovvur West Godavari District 1. 2. One CC to Sri. P Vivek Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies vna HIGH COURT DATED :21/02/2025 ORDER CRP.No.328 of 2025 S-oTandB^ X 2 0 MAR 2025 ^ . Current Section ^ ^*«4£espATCvvS^ ALLOWING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS