APHC010068922023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 360/2023 Between: 1. YELLAPU VEERAYAMMA, (DIED) 2. SARAKADAM NAGAMANI, W/O. SURI APPA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, MALE, HOUSEWIFE R/O. D.NO. 14-4/2, GAVARLAPALEM, RELANGI VILLAGE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. NOOLI RANGAYYA, (DIED) 2. NOOLI SATISH KUMAR, S/O. LATE RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, MALE, CULTIVATION R/O. D.NO. 14-4/2, GAVARLAPALEM, RELANGI VILLAGE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...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 topleased to allow the revision by setting-aside the Orders dt.24-01- 2023 passed in I.A.No.903 of 2022 in 0.S.No.131 of 2017 of the Court Of Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, thereby allowing the I.A.No.903 of 2022, by calling for the records of the suit in 0.S.No.131 of 2017 and grant such other relief or reliefs which this Honourable Court may deem fit 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 2 pleased to Grant Interim Stay of all other proceedings of the proceeding of the suit in O.S.No.131 of 2017 of the Court Of Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, and grant such other relief or reliefs which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Else, I will be put to severe hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P RAJESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. R K ACHARYULU 2. The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant. The suit in O.S.No.131 of 2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, has been filed for declaration that the 2nd plaintiff is the absolute owner of the schedule property and she perfected her title through adverse possession and for consequential permanent injunction, 2. In the said suit, the petitioner herein/plaintiff filed I.A.No.903 of 2022 under Order VII of Rule 14(3) of CPC praying the Court to receive documents, i.e., certified copies of the suit register in O.S.No.253 of 1980 and suit register in O.S.No.261 of 1980. 3. To the said interlocutory application, the respondent herein/defendant filed counter praying to dismiss the application contending that, the petitioner/plaintiff is not a party to O.S.No.253 of 1980 and the present defendant is not a party to O.S.No.261 of 1980. 4. After hearing both parties, the Court below dismissed the said interlocutory application vide its order dated 24.01.2023. Assailing the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed. 5. Heard Sri P.Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.K.Acharyulu, learned counsel for respondents. 6. While reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of interlocutory application and grounds of revision, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the said documents are received, no prejudice will be caused to the defendant and whether those documents are relevant to the subject suit or not cannot be decided at the time of trial and validity of the documents cannot be 4 tested at the time of receiving. He further contend that the Court below did not properly appreciate the purpose of filing the said interlocutory application and dismissed solely on the ground that the petitioner has not shown due diligence in filing those documents. If the said documents are not received by the Court below, the petitioners’ rights will be affected. As such, prayed to allow the civil revision petition. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent in support of the counter averments contended that the petitioner did not plead and proved as to why those documents could not be filed along with the plaint when those documents are very much available with the plaintiff. The Court below has rightly dealt with the application and dismissed with cogent reasons. The petitioner has not raised any valid grounds warranting interference of this Hon’ble Court. As such, the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed. However, if this Court is inclined to interfere, a direction may be given to the trial Court to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. 8. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. 9. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit vide in O.S.No.131 of 2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, for declaration of title by adverse possession and also for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an interlocutory application vide I.A.No.903 of 2022 under Order VII of Rule 14(3) of CPC praying the Court to receive the documents i.e., certified copy of the suit register in O.S.No.253 of 1980 and O.S.No.261of 1980 by condoning the delay in filing the same and to mark the said documents as exhibits on the side of the 5 plaintiff. The respondent herein/defendant filed counter denying the averments, inter-alia contending that the document relating to suit O.S.No.253 of 1980 is between Nooli Rangaiah and Mamidisetti Anjaneyulu, wherein the plaintiff is not a party to the said suit. Insofar as document relating to suit O.S.No.261 of 1980 is between Yellapu Appa Rao and Mamidisetti Anjaneyulu, wherein defendant is not a party to the said suit. As such, those documents cannot be brought on record. The Court below dismissed the said interlocutory application solely on the ground that the petitioner has not shown due diligence in filing those documents. 10 It is not in dispute that the petitioner/plaintiff has pleaded about the said documents in the plaint. Further, the Court cannot go into the veracity of the documents or decide whether they are relevant to the suit or not at the stage of receiving the documents. The respondents did not explain as to what prejudice would be caused to them if the documents are received by the Court. It is also not in dispute that the suit is coming for trial and trial has not been commenced so far. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in LEVAKU PEDDA REDDAMMA & ORS. Versus GOTTUMUKKALA VENKATA SUBBAMMA & ANR1, held as follows:- “We find that the trial Court as well as the High Court have gravely erred in law in not permitting the defendants to produce documents, the relevance of which can be examined by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence to be led, but to deprive a party to the suit not to file documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice. It is well settled that rules of procedure are hand-maid 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.” 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 533 6 12. In view of the reasons stated supra, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/defendant if the said documents are received and the Court below did not see the purport of Order VII Rule 14 (3) of CPC in a right perspective. 13. On the reasons stated supra and in view of the law laid down in Levaku Pedda Redamma case (referred supra), the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, consequently I.A.No.903 of 2022 is allowed. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible as the suit is of the year 2017. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 19th January, 2026 JLV 7 241 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 360/2023 Date: 19th January, 2026 JLV