APHC010414522025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2011/2025 BETWEEN: 1. IVATURI JAYA RAM, S/o. LATE VEERESWARA RAO, AGED 50 YEARS, R/o. RAJENDRA NAGAR, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KADIYALA SRINIVASA KUMAR, S/o. LATE. MASSENU, AGED 55 YEARS, R/o. COLLEGE ROAD, BOBBILLI TOWN AND MUNICIPALITY, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2. SAMBANGI VENUGOPALA NAIDU, S/O. LATE. SURAPU NAIDU AGED 61 YEARS, R/o. PAKKI VILLAGE, BOBBILI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM 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 to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting-aside order dt.09.07.2025 in I.A.No.231 of 2025 in O.S.No.17 of 2024 on the file of the Hon'ble II Addl. District Judge Court, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District in the interest of Justice and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G L NAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. TADDI NAGESWARA RAO The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petitioner is 1st respondent in I.A.No.231 of 2024 and plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.17 of 2024, on the file of II Additional District Judge at Parvathipuram and the 1st respondent in the Civil Revision Petition is the 1st defendant in the suit. And the 2nd defendant is purchaser of the suit schedule property from the 1st defendant. The plaintiff also filed another suit for permanent injunction i.e., O.S.No.74 of 2024, on the file of II Additional District Judge at Parvathipuram. The parties hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and 1st defendant. 2. Plaintiff filed two suits O.S.No.17 of 2024 on the file of II Additional District Judge at Parvathipuram filed for suit for specific performance basing on the agreement of sale dated 03.06.2011 and suit O.S.No.74 of 2024 in the same Court for permanent injunction basing on the lease agreement dated 31.03.2010. The suit schedule property is one and the same in the two suits. 3. The 1st defendant in the suit filed I.A.No.231 of 2024 under Order XI rule 16 CPC r/w Sec 65 & 66 of the Evidence Act, to direct the Plaintiff in the suit to produce the original lease deed 31.03.2010 asserting that Plaintiff is in the possession of the lease agreement dated 31.03.2010 for the purpose of comparison of the signature of the 1st defendant with the suit agreement of sale dated 03.06.2011. 3 4. The said I.A.No.231 of 2024 was allowed by the trial Court Judge vide order dated 09.07.2025 observing that the plaintiff cannot deny that the said document is not within the custody of the plaintiff drawing presumption under Section 89 of the Evidence Act that every document called for and not produced after notice to produce, was attested, stamped and executed in the manner required by law, and issued a notice under appendix-C Form No.7 to produce the original lease deed dated 31.10.2010 observing that the original is in the possession of the plaintiff in the suit. And the said order is assailed in this Civil Revision Petition. The relevant grounds are extracted hereunder: (1) The Hon’ble Trial Court ought to have seen that the revision petitioner filed the certified copy of Lease Agreement in O.S. No.74 of 2024 on the file of the Hon’ble Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bobbili due non-availability of original document with him, but erroneously held to produce the Lease Agreement which is not with the revision petitioner. (2) It is further submitted that Order XI Rule 16 prescribes a special procedure prior to filing of the petition before the Hon’ble Court, the Hon’ble Trial Court ought to have seen that 1st respondent miserably failed in following the procedure contemplated under Order XI Rule 16of C.P.C. (3) The Hon’ble Trial Court ought to have seen that without a prior demand or notice, a petition under Rule 16 is premature and is liable to be dismissed. Under these 4 circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable under law. 5. The condition precedent for the application of Section 89 appears to be that the original document must have been called for and has not been produced after notice to produce it is given, and the statutory presumption under Section 89 can be raised only in cases which fall under Section 65(a) and Section 66, Evidence Act. 6. The revision petitioner who is plaintiff in the suit filed counter in the I.A. No. 231 of 2024, stated that lease agreement dated 31.03.2010 said to be executed was returned to the 1st defendant. And it is further stated that basing on the signatures on certified copies of documents which are nothing but photocopies copies in nature, it is not permissible to treat them as contemporaneous signatures for the purpose of comparison. 7. The undisputed fact is that the 1st defendant, who is the petitioner in the I.A., executed a lease deed on 31.03.2010, which is the suit document in O.S. No. 74 of 2024 filed for permanent injunction. The plaintiff alleges that in the counter that the suit document was returned to the 1st defendant, but it does not specify when this was happened or has obtained any endorsement to the said affect, in the absence, it can be presumed that the document is with the plaintiff. In the counter it is further stated that it is not permissible to treat the signature in the lease 5 agreement as contemporaneous signature for the purpose of comparison basing on the photocopy. 8. Prior to filing the suit, for permanent injunction, the plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance against the 1st defendant. In the counter in I.A. 231 of 2024, it is asserted that the signatures cannot be treated as contemporaneous for comparison purposes based on the photocopies. This statement in the counter has been cleverly drafted intuitively, this creates a doubt in the Court’s mind to draw a presumption that the suit document i.e., lease agreement is in the possession of the plaintiff. 9. The corresponding Section of 114 of Indian Evidence Act is Section 119 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. 10. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act is reproduced herein below:- "114. Court may presume existence of certain facts - The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case." 11. Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act provides a guiding principle, namely that the Court shall be guided by its own experience and 6 knowledge of the common course of natural events, and public and private affairs. 12. Since the suit for permanent injunction is based on the lease deed executed by the 1st defendant, it can be inferred that the plaintiff possesses the original lease agreement document dated 31.03.2010. 13. In view of the discussion stated supra, the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not valid grounds for the purpose of deciding this Civil Revision Petition and this Court sees no reasons to meddle with the order of the trial Court Judge, as the order is impeccable. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition fails, and it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO Date: 02.01.2026 KBN 7 15 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO C.R.P.No. 2011 OF 2025 Date: 02.01.2026 KBN