APHC010051402023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: 1. JAGATAPURAVU PRAMEELA RANI, W/O.BALA RAJU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC PROPERTIES, R/O.H.NO.5 GANDIGUNTA VILLAGE, VUYYURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT 1. KAVURI SUBRAHMANYESWARA RAO, S/o.Sivaji, Hindu, Aged 43 years, R/o.Lohiya Residency, Mega Town Ship, Ayyappa Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court pleased to aggrieved by the Order and Decree Dated 15 the same in I.A.No.969 of 2022 in O.S.No.73 of 2015 on the file of the court of Learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna District at Gudivada, IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in 0.S.No.73 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Learned XI Ad Krishna District, pending disposal of the main C.R.P and pass IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 493/2023 JAGATAPURAVU PRAMEELA RANI, W/O.BALA RAJU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC PROPERTIES, R/O.H.NO.5 GANDIGUNTA VILLAGE, VUYYURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND KAVURI SUBRAHMANYESWARA RAO, S/o.Sivaji, Hindu, Aged 43 years, R/o.Lohiya Residency, Mega Town Ship, Ayyappa Nagar, Vijayawada, 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 pleased to aggrieved by the Order and Decree Dated 15-12- the same in I.A.No.969 of 2022 in O.S.No.73 of 2015 on the file of the court of Learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna District at 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in 0.S.No.73 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District, pending disposal of the main C.R.P and pass IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI JAGATAPURAVU PRAMEELA RANI, W/O.BALA RAJU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC PROPERTIES, R/O.H.NO.5-49, GANDIGUNTA VILLAGE, VUYYURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER KAVURI SUBRAHMANYESWARA RAO, S/o.Sivaji, Hindu, Aged about 43 years, R/o.Lohiya Residency, Mega Town Ship, Ayyappa Nagar, ...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 -2022 dismissed the same in I.A.No.969 of 2022 in O.S.No.73 of 2015 on the file of the court of Learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna District at 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in 0.S.No.73 of 2015 on the file of the ditional District and Sessions Judge, Gudivada, 2 IA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 extend the Interim order dated 02.03.2023 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in C.R.P.No.493 of 2023 and in the interests of justice 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 extend the Interim order dated 22.10.2024 passed in lA No.01 of 2024 in C.R.P.No.493 of 2023 in the interests of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SRINIVAS BOBBILI 3 The Court made the following order: Assailing the correctness and the legality of the order dated 15.12.2022 passed by learned XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gudivada in Interlocutory Application No.969 of 2022 in Original Suit No.73 of 2015, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts that led to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are that: The petitioner herein is defendant and respondent herein is plaintiff in O.S.No.73 of 2015. The respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit seeking a direction to the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.31,20,000/- which was received by her as advance sale consideration under an agreement of sale dated 09.09.2014 together with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization. In the said suit, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.969 of 2022 duly praying the Court to condone the delay in filing the measurement sheet, dated 09.05.2015 to establish her case and to permit the same to be marked as exhibit on her behalf. The petitioner contended that she could not file the said document at the time of filing the written statement as it had been misplaced and was traced only recently. She further contended that there is no willful default or negligence on her part in not filing the said document earlier and that the said document is essential to prove her case. ii) The said application was opposed by the respondent/plaintiff denying the allegations and inter alia contending that the petition is not maintainable 4 under Order VIII Rule 1 A CPC, as the Court has no power to condone the delay in filing the measurement sheet dated 09.05.2015. It was further contended that in the entire pleadings of the defendant in the suit, there is no reference to the said document proposed to be produced on her behalf. In the absence of any such reference in the pleadings, the Court cannot grant leave to file the said document. It was also contended that no sufficient reason has been shown for not filing the proposed document along with the written statement. iii) Upon considering the submissions made by the both sides, the Court below dismissed the said application on the ground that in the absence of specific plea in the written statement with regard to the said document, merely stating that the document was misplaced at the stage of marking documents through D.W.1 cannot be permitted, unless such plea is supported by the pleadings in the written statement. Assailing the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 4. Heard Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and Sri Srinivas Bobbili, learned counsel for respondent/ plaintiff. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision, contended that the Court below failed to appreciate the purport of Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) CPC in a right prospective. The Court below erroneously dismissed the application on the ground that the 5 petitioner/defendant had not specifically mentioned about the document in the written statement, nor sought leave of the Court to file the same at a later stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that such an observation is erroneous, inasmuch as, in the written statement, particularly in paragraph No.6 the defendant had clearly stated that she requested the plaintiff through her husband for measurement of the plaint schedule property after completion of 90 days, and that the plaintiff along with her men, visited the schedule property on 09.05.2015 along with a private surveyor and the land was measured in the presence of elders and mediators. He further contended that mere delay in filing the document cannot be a ground to reject the application. Learned counsel further submitted that if the said measurement sheet is not received on record, the petitioner/defendant would be put to irreparable loss and hardship and her right to defend the case would be seriously prejudiced. On the other hand, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff, if the document is received, as the respondent would have opportunity to object to its marking and to contest its evidentiary value in accordance with law. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit filed before the Court below, contended that the Court below has rightly dismissed the application after duly taking into consideration the fact that the defendant did not take any specific stand in the written statement with regard to the said document. He further contended that the defendant has not explained as to why the said document could not be 6 filed along with the written statement and in the absence of such pleadings or explanation, the application seeking to receive the document cannot be entertained. In view of the above, no valid grounds are made out warranting interference by this Court and prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 8. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure for reception of the document, viz., the measurement sheet dated 09.05.2015. 9. A perusal of Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC would make it clear that a document which was not filed along with the written statement may be received at a later stage, with the leave of the Court, upon showing sufficient cause. In the present case, the reason assigned by the petitioner for non- production of the document at the earlier stage is that the same was misplaced and was traced subsequently. Though the explanation may not be elaborate, this Court is of the view that the same cannot be brushed aside in a mechanical manner, particularly when the document sought to be produced is stated to be relevant for adjudication of the issue. 10. The Court below dismissed the application primarily on the ground that there was no specific pleading in the written statement with regard to the said document. However, a perusal of the written statement, particularly paragraph 7 No.6, indicates that there is a reference to the measurement of the plaint schedule property conducted on 09.05.2015 in the presence of elders and mediators. 11. It is well settled law that at the stage of receiving a document, the Court is not required to go into its evidentiary value. The objection as to admissibility and proof can always be considered at the appropriate stage during trial. 12. In the case of Levaku Pedda Reddamma v. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma1, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that : “It is well settled that rules of procedure are hand made of justice and therefore, even if there is some delay, the trial Court should have imposed some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself.” 13. This Court is inclined to apply the said principle in the present case as well. Moreover, the trial Court failed to consider as to what prejudice would be caused to respondent/plaintiff, if the delay was condoned. No serious prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff if the document is received, as the respondent would have every opportunity to object to its marking and to contest its genuineness and evidentiary value during trial. On the other hand, refusal to receive the document would result in serious prejudice to the petitioner/defendant, affecting her right to defend the suit. 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 533 8 14. Further, mere delay in filing the document cannot, by itself, be a ground to reject the application, particularly when the suit is still pending and no irreparable prejudice is demonstrated to have been caused to the other side. 15. In view of the above discussion, the reasons set out in the affidavit filed in support of the Interlocutory application were not properly considered by the Court below while dismissing the application. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order of the Court below as no substantial prejudice would be caused to respondent, if the said application is allowed. 16. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 15.12.2022 passed in I.A. No. 969 of 2022 in O.S. No. 73 of 2015 by the XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gudivada. The application filed by the petitioner/defendant to receive the measurement sheet dated 09.05.2015 is hereby allowed, subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility in accordance with law. It is made clear that the respondent/plaintiff is at liberty to raise all objections with regard to the marking, admissibility and evidentiary value of the said document at the appropriate stage of the trial. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 09.03.2026 MP 9 244 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:493 of 2023 Date: 09.03.2026 MP