APHC010083852025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Between: 1. PALLURI JAGANNADHA RAO,, S/O. LATE SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEAIRS, R/O. VIVEKANADA COLONY, L.B.NAGAR, KRISHNARAYAPURAM, PENDURTHI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. T.NO.102, 2. THAMISETTI SUDHARANI, W/O. BRAHMAAJEE AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 15 GOLLAGUDEM, OPP. ADITYA PUBLIC SCHOOL, AMALAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. PALLURI SANTOSH KUMAR,, S/O. JAGANNADHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, KRISHNAR AYAPURAM, PENDURTHI VILLAGE DC, MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. 4. PELLURI JYOTHI, W/O. NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 6- ANAGAR, HYDERABAD 1. KOTHAKOTA BHARATHI, W/o. Gowri Sankara Rao, Aged about 55 years, R/o. Flat No. 104, Rayagada Town Odisha State. Phone No. 8658775035. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 533/2025 PALLURI JAGANNADHA RAO,, S/O. LATE SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEAIRS, R/O. VIVEKANADA COLONY, L.B.NAGAR, KRISHNARAYAPURAM, PENDURTHI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. T.NO.102, THAMISETTI SUDHARANI, W/O. BRAHMAAJEE AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 15-2-131/260, BHASKARA NAGARI GOLLAGUDEM, OPP. ADITYA PUBLIC SCHOOL, AMALAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. PALLURI SANTOSH KUMAR,, S/O. JAGANNADHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O. VIVEKANADA COLONY, L.B.NAGAR, KRISHNAR AYAPURAM, PENDURTHI VILLAGE DC, MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. PELLURI JYOTHI, W/O. NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, -7-78, BADVELU, KOTTEBAN, RAJ ENDR ANAGAR, HYDERABAD ...PETITIONER(S) AND KOTHAKOTA BHARATHI, W/o. Gowri Sankara Rao, Aged about 55 years, R/o. Flat No. 104, Rayagada Town Odisha State. Phone No. ...RESPONDENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI PALLURI JAGANNADHA RAO,, S/O. LATE SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEAIRS, R/O. VIVEKANADA COLONY, L.B.NAGAR, KRISHNARAYAPURAM, PENDURTHI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. T.NO.102, THAMISETTI SUDHARANI, W/O. BRAHMAAJEE AGED ABOUT 32 131/260, BHASKARA NAGARI GOLLAGUDEM, OPP. ADITYA PUBLIC SCHOOL, AMALAPURAM, PALLURI SANTOSH KUMAR,, S/O. JAGANNADHA RAO, AGED R/O. VIVEKANADA COLONY, L.B.NAGAR, KRISHNAR AYAPURAM, PENDURTHI VILLAGE DC, MANDAL, PELLURI JYOTHI, W/O. NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 78, BADVELU, KOTTEBAN, RAJ ENDR PETITIONER(S) KOTHAKOTA BHARATHI, W/o. Gowri Sankara Rao, Aged about 55 years, R/o. Flat No. 104, Rayagada Town Odisha State. Phone No. ...RESPONDENT 2 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 to set aside order dt.06.09.2024 in I.A.No.548 of 2023 in O.S.NO. 22 of 2019 of the Additional Junior Civil Judge Cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bobbili, 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 to Stay all further proceedings of the O.S.NO. 22 OF 2019, of the Additional Junior Civil Judge Cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bobbin, pending disposal of the present CRP Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SWATI GUDA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. TADDI SOWMYA NAIDU 3 The Court made the following Order: Aggrieved by the order dated 06.09.2024 passed in Interlocutory Application No.548 of 2023 in Original Suit No.22 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.22 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili. The respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit for recovery of suit amount by way of sale of mortgaged property. In the said suit, the petitioners herein/defendants filed I.A.No.548 of 2023 under Order XIII Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC praying the Court below to send for the records in Crime No.139 of 2011 along with referred proceedings in the suit for marking on behalf of the petitioners/defendants. To the said application, the respondent/plaintiff filed counter contending that the reason given in the petition for non-filing of the documents at the time of filing of the suit is not correct and explanation given by the petitioners is vague and the petitioners have to explain properly for non-filing of the documents. The Court below, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the said application on the grounds that the petitioners did not mention the date of the order of the Court. Moreover, generally, referred charge sheet proceedings ordered within three months from the date of filing of the same and the said case record also destructed within 12 years and after lapsing of time, filed the present petition, 4 it is impossible to cause production of the relevant document in crime No.139 of 2011 and the present application has been filed only to drag on the matter. Assailing the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 3. Heard Ms.Swati Guda, learned counsel for the petitioners appearing through virtual mode and Sri Taddi Nageswararao, learned counsel, representing learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision, contended that the Court below failed to appreciate the reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the application while dismissing the same. She further contended that there is a specific averment in the written statement and the record in crime No.139 of 2011 is required to establish the same. The Court below failed to see that the documents which are sought to be called for are crucial for proper adjudication of the case and no prejudice will be caused to the respondent/plaintiff, if such application is allowed. She further contended that if such application is not allowed, great prejudice will be caused to the petitioners, as such, prayed to allow the Revision Petition. In support of her contention, she relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Lakshmi and another v. Chinnammal @ Rayyammal and others 1 5. On the other hand, Sri Taddi Nageswararao, learned counsel for the respondent, while justifying the order passed by the Court below, contended 1 2009(13) SCC 25 5 that the petitioners have not stated proper reasons as to why the petitioners failed to file such documents along with the plaint. Further, order XIII Rule 10 CPC is very clear that the affidavit should be clear as to how the record is material to the suit in which the application is made. He further contended that the petitioners failed to show or plead as to how the documents which are sought to be called are material documents to the suit. In fact, the documents now being sought relate to the proceedings, where the criminal case was closed/referred as civil in nature and moreover, the private complaint filed by the petitioners was also referred as ‘Civil in nature’. By virtue of the said documents, the petitioners cannot prove their case or defend themselves in the suit. He further submitted that the Court below has rightly dealt the application and dismissed the same by giving cogent reasons and the judgment relied by the petitioners is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The petitioners have not made out any case warranting interference of this Court and prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the production of the documents in the present suit would be beneficial for adjudication of the matter. In fact, it was clearly stated in the Written Statement about the criminal proceedings, wherein it is stated that the petitioners have paid suit amount and having received the said amount, filed the suit to have an undue gain. As such, prayed to allow the Revision 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6 8. The petitioners contended that the suit amount has already been paid to the respondent/plaintiff, and this plea has been specifically raised in the written statement. It is further contended that the documents, now sought to be obtained from the Criminal Court i.e., FIR and other referred proceedings, are essential to defend the suit. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the petitioners have clearly stated that the criminal case was referred as a civil dispute and the private case filed by the wife of 1st petitioner vide CC No.8 of 2022 has also been referred as civil in nature. Except stating that the documents are necessary, no further averment or pleading explaining how the documents are materially relevant to the subject suit has been made. 9. Order XIII Rule 10 CPC is extracted hereunder for ready reference. 10. Court may send for papers from its own records or from other Courts. (1) The Court may of its own motion, and may in its discretion upon the application of any of the parties to a suit, send for, either from its own records or from any other suit or proceedings, and inspect the same. (2) Every application made under this rule (unless the Court otherwise directs) be supported by an affidavit showing how the record is material to the suit in which the application is made, and that the applicant cannot without unreasonable delay or expense obtain a duly authenticated copy of the record or of such portion thereof as the applicant requires, or that the production of the original is necessary for the purposes of justice. 7 (3) Nothing contained in this rule shall be deemed to enable the Court to use in evidence any document which under the law of evidence would be inadmissible in the suit. 10. Order XIII Rule 10 CPC clearly envisages that the affidavit must necessarily plead how the record sought is material to the suit in which the application is made. In the present case, as stated supra, the petitioners have failed to plead and prove as to how the documents are material to the suit. In the judgment relied on by the petitioners in the case of Lakshmi v. Chinnammal referred supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “13. If bringing on record a document is essential for proving the case by a party, ordinarily the same should not be refused; the court’s duty being to find out the truth. The procedural mechanics necessary to arrive at a just decision must be encouraged. We are not unmindful of the fact that the Court in the said process would not encourage any fishing enquiry. It would also not assist a party in procuring a document which he should have himself filed.” The principle laid down in the said judgment is well settled, however, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondents, it is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The Court below, though specifically did not state as to how the record/document is material to the suit, however dismissed the application on the ground that the said criminal proceedings, which are sought, were destroyed 12 years ago. There is justification in the said observation made by the Court below. There is no illegality or impropriety in 8 the order passed by the Court below and there are no valid grounds raised or urged before this Court in the present Civil Revision Petition warranting interference of this Court and hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs of the Civil Revision Petition. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 29.08.2025 MP 9 194 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.533 of 2025 Dated 29.08.2025 MP