APHC010233522024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1711/2024 Between: 1. KOYYA GANGA VENKATA SATYA BHASKARARAO,, S/O GANGARAO, AGED 52 YEARS, CULTIVATION AND BUSINESS A.V.NAGARAM, THONDANGI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 2. KOYYA MURALI KRISHNA,, S/O K GANGARAO, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. CULTIVATION AND BUSINESS, R/O A.V.NAGARAM VILLAGE, THONDANGI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. KOYYA RAMAKRISHNUDU, S/O PAPARAO, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, A.V. NAGARAM, THONDANGI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 2. KOYYA SURYANARAYANA, S/O LATE PAPARAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, A.V. NAGARAM, THONDANGI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 3. KOYYA RADHA KRISHNA, S/O GANGARAO, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, A.V. NAGARAM, THONDANGI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 4. KOYYA GANGADHARA SRINIVASARAO, S/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, A.V. NAGARAM, THONDANGI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 2 ...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 to Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the Order dated.30-04-2024, in I.A. No.249 of 2024 in O.S No. 16 of 2015, on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram, East Godavari District, IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 O.S No. 16 of 2015, on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram, East Godavari District, pending disposal of the above revision and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. T V JAGGI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N SIVA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: Aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A.No.249 of 2024 in O.S.No.16 of 2015 on the file of Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram, dated 30.04.2024, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants. The petitioners-plaintiffs got filed suit in O.S.No.16 of 2015 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram, for permanent injunction. During pendency of the suit, the petitioners/plaintiffs got filed I.A.No.249 of 2024 under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act and Section 3 151 of Civil Procedure Code to lead secondary evidence i.e., to mark the photo copy of partition document dated 29.04.2010 which is unregistered partition document executed by defendants 1 & 2, vendors of the defendants 3 & 4 to prove their case that the defendants have nothing to do with the suit schedule property. 3. Though a notice to produce the documents under Order XII Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code has been issued to the defendants, the defendants failed to produce the same, however, simply stated that the same is not available with them. In those circumstances to seek the permission of the Court to mark the said copy of the said document on the plaintiff’s side, I.A.No.249 of 2024 has been filed. 4. The said application has been opposed by the respondents/ defendants by filing counters duly contending that the photo copy of the unregistered partition document dated 29.04.2010 is not at all maintainable as it is sham document and the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and the same cannot be marked and liable to be rejected. After hearing the parties, the trial Court dismissed the said I.A. vide its order dated 30.04.2024 on the ground that unless stamp duty and penalty is paid, an unregistered partition document cannot be looked into for any purpose. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4 5. Heard Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents of the affidavit and the grounds of revision contended that the subject document is very much available with the respondents/defendants and the said document has relevancy to the subject suit. In those circumstances, to produce the said document, a notice as contemplated under Order XII Rule 8 has been issued. However, as they failed to produce the document before the Court below, on the ground that the same is not available with them and as the plaintiff having only photo copy of the said document, I.A.No.249 of 2024 has been filed under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to receive the document as secondary evidence. The Court below erroneously dismissed the said application on the ground that the said document is not properly stamped and unregistered. 7. He further contended that law is very clear that the relevancy of the document cannot be looked into at the time of receiving the document and the trial Court has to take due note of the relevancy of the document at the time of marking. If this Civil Revision Petition is not allowed, great prejudice will be caused to the petitioners herein/plaintiffs and no prejudice will be cause if the said document is received by the trial Court to the defendant. 5 8. On the other hand, Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents herein/defendants while justifying the orders passed by the trial Court and in elaboration to what has been stated in the order passed by the Court below pointed out that receiving the document would be a futile exercise as the same require stamp duty and registration. Admittedly, the said document is a photo copy, not sufficiently stamped and unregistered one. The same cannot be marked in the suit. In the said circumstances, even the question of receiving the document does not arise. The petitioner has not raised any valid legal grounds warranting the interference, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 9. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 10. The suit was filed for permanent injunction. To prove that the suit schedule property has nothing to do with the defendants, the plaintiffs filed an Interlocutory application vide I.A.No.249 of 2024 to bring on record and to mark the photo copy of the unregistered partition document dated 29.04.2010 as secondary evidence. It is not in dispute that before filing of the said application, the petitioners herein/plaintiffs got issued notice to the respondents herein/defendants to produce the documents as contemplated under Order XII Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code and it was contended that the said document was not produced by the 6 defendants on the ground that it is not available with them. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the relevancy of the documents cannot be looked into at the time of receiving the document, the trial Court can as well look into the said issue and defendants can as well oppose while marking the said document, however, the trial Court failed to follow the said principle. 11. Further, it is brought to the notice of this Court that before the suit was reserved for pronouncement of judgment, the petitioners herein/plaintiffs filed two Interlocutory Applications to reopen and recall the witness and record the evidence of the plaintiffs’ side and the same were dismissed on merits. Assailing the said orders, the petitioners herein/plaintiffs filed C.R.P.Nos.2254 & 2259 of 2025, however, as there was no stay in the said C.R.Ps, the suit is proceeded further and the matter has been reserved for judgments. At that stage, the above referred C.R.Ps were allowed directing the trial Court to proceed with their evidence. Accordingly, the suit has been reopened and the matter is coming for further evidence on the plaintiff side. It is also admitted fact that the present I.A.No.249 of 2024 has also been filed during the course of trial and the same has been dismissed at later point of time. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that the documents can be produced by the parties and the relevancy of which can be examined by the trial Court on the basis of evidence to be let and at the 7 time of marking, as the case may be, and denial of the same would lead to denial of justice. 13. As stated supra, the order passed by the trial Court is held to be erroneous and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I.A.No.249 of 2024 is allowed. However, the defendants are at liberty to oppose for marking of the document by raising all the pleas available to them. However, as the suit was already reopened, this Court is inclined to allow this Civil Revision Petition. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 22nd January, 2026 RKS