APHC010350012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1725/2025 Between: 1. DASARI SRIDEVI, W/O PATTABHI RAMA RAO, AGED 43 YEARS, PROPERTY, R/O FLAT NO.504, PADMARELCHA APARTMENTS, JAYANTHI NAGAR, HYDERABAD. STATE OF TELANGANA. 2. REDDY PAPARAO,, S/O SATHIRAJU, LALITHA NAGAR, 2ND STREET, KORUKONDA ROAD, RAJ AMAHENDRAVARAM. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. GUTTULA SUBHRAMANYAM, S/O LATE PAPAYYA, AGED 53 YEARS. PROPERTY, RANGAMPETA, RANGAMPETA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT (PRESENTLY KAKINADA DISTRICT) 2. GUTTULA BIMASANKAR, S/O GUTTULA SUBRAHMANYAM, AGED 36 YEARS, PROPERTY, RANGAMPETA, RANGAMPETA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT (PRESENTLY KAKINADA DISTRICT) 3. GUTTULA RAMBABU, S/O GUTTULA SUBRAHMANYAM, AGED 38 YEARS, RANGAMPETA, RANGAMPETA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT (PRESENTLY 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 allow the revision by setting-aside the Orders dt.24-06- 2025 of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Peddapuram, passed in I.A.No.439 of 2024 in O.S.No.85 of 2015, thereby dismissing the said I.A.No.439 of 2024, by calling for the records of the suit in O.S.No.85 of 2015 and pass 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 Grant Interim Stay of all further proceedings of the trial of the suit in O.S.No.85 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Peddapuram, East Godavari District, until further orders of this Hon'ble Court, pending disposal of the CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P RAJESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K GANI REDDY The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Assailing the correctness and legality of the orders passed in I.A.No.439 of 2024 in O.S.No.85 of 2015 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Peddapuram, dated 24.06.2025, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The facts that led to filing of the Civil Revision Petition are that the petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in a suit filed vide O.S.No.85 of 2015 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Peddapuram,for injunction. 3. In the said suit, defendants(wrongly shown in the cause title of the impugned order filed I.A.No.439 of 2024 under Section 151 of CPC seeking leave of the Court to file a Compact Disc and accompanying certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) to be used during the cross examination of PW-2. The said application has been opposed by the plaintiffs by filing counter denying the allegations accordingly prayed to dismiss the interlocutory application. After hearing the parties, the Court below allowed, the said application. Assailing the same, the present Revision Petition is filed. 4. Heard Sri P.Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Mehar Babu, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the respondents. 4 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the grounds of revision and contents of the counter filed before the Court below in I.A. submitted that the Court below failed to see the purport of Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act in right perspective. Further, the certificate now sought to be received is inadmissible in evidence and petitioner did not explain why the certificate now sought to be received dated 09.07.2024 was not filed along with Compact Disc in I.A.No.570 of 2016 and proper explanation is also not offered for the delay. 6. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgement of the Madras High Court in C.R.P.(PD).No.390 of 2014 in P.C.Murugeasan v. S.Prabhakaran1and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K.Basheer&Ors2 and accordingly, submitted that the Court below erroneously allowed the said application wherein the plaintiffs would be put to irreparable loss and hardship and prayed to allow the revision and dismiss the I.A.No.439 of 2014. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit filed along with I.A. contended that Court below has rightly allowed the application by duly taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and law available. At the time of receiving the document, the Court cannot look into the document and its admissibility at receiving stage. He further 1 AIR 2018 (NOC) 798 (MAD) 2 (2014) 10 Supreme Court Cases 473 5 submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held to the said effect. The Court below has also observed that the said documents which are now sought to be received are subject to relevancy and proof. No prejudice will be caused to the plaintiffs if such documents are received. No valid grounds have been raised warranting interference of this Court, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the CRP. 8. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 9. In the impugned order, the cause title has been wrongly mentioned. It is the defendants who filed I.A.No.439 of 2024 under Section 151 of CPC seeking leave of the Court to file a CD and accompanying certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) on the ground that during cross examination of PW2 when the counsel intended to confront the Compact Disc which was filed long back before the Court in I.A.No.570 of 2016 and since the petitioner admitted that there is a creditor and debtor relationship and to prove the contention, he intend to confront the said CD but the counsel for the plaintiffs objected for want of certificate. In those circumstances, the said certificate has been obtained and filed along with the application. 10. The said application has been opposed by the plaintiffs by filing counter stating that the certificate is incomplete and defective since it 6 does not contain the received parabola required under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and prayed to dismiss the I.A. After hearing the parties, the Court below allowed the application and thereby permitted the defendants to file the Compact Disc and Certificate. The Court below also taken due note of about the admissibility, probative value and compliance of the certificate with legal standards at appropriate stage of suit. There is no dispute in the judgement relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner and it is a well settled principle of law. However, the same cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case. The validity of 65B certificate should be looked into at the time of marking the documents but not at the time of receiving the document. The Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgements has categorically held that the Rules are handmade of justice and to do substantial justice, the application should not be dismissed on the ground of delay. No prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff on mere receiving of the document. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Levaku Pedda Reddamma & Ors. vs Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma & Anr3, 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. 3 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 533 7 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.” 12. As the Court below has rightly observed that admissibility and compliance of the certificate with legal standards will be considered at appropriate stage of the claim and the said order does not warrant interference of this Court. In the said view of the fact, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 30th March, 2026 RKS