APHC010459182025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH SATURDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No C.R.P.No.2352 of 2025 Between: 1. K.KESAVA REDDY, S/o K.BALA KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCC: CULTIVATION, R/O D.No.1/1A, SIVALAYAM STREET, KARVETI NAGARAM TOWN AND POST, KARVETI NAGARAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 1. K.KRISHNAIAH, S/o.K.MUNIRATNAM, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/o.BOUND STREET, KARVETI NAGARAM TOWN, KARVETI NAGARAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Mr.V NITESH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. Mr.KANDERI CHETHAN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 2352 and 2347 of 2025 K.KESAVA REDDY, S/o K.BALA KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCC: CULTIVATION, R/O D.No.1/1A, SIVALAYAM STREET, KARVETI NAGARAM TOWN AND POST, KARVETI NAGARAM AL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND K.KRISHNAIAH, S/o.K.MUNIRATNAM, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/o.BOUND STREET, KARVETI NAGARAM TOWN, KARVETI NAGARAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.KANDERI CHETHAN IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] SATURDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA of 2025 K.KESAVA REDDY, S/o K.BALA KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCC: CULTIVATION, R/O D.No.1/1A, SIVALAYAM STREET, KARVETI NAGARAM TOWN AND POST, KARVETI NAGARAM ...PETITIONER K.KRISHNAIAH, S/o.K.MUNIRATNAM, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/o.BOUND STREET, KARVETI NAGARAM TOWN, KARVETI NAGARAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT 2 The Court made the following Common Order: Civil Revision Petition No.2347 of 2025 is filed against the order dated 15.07.2025 in I.A.No.13 of 2025 in O.S.No.24 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puttur. 2. Civil Revision Petition No.2352 of 2025 is filed against the order dated 15.07.2025 in I.A.No.14 of 2025 in O.S.No.24 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puttur. 3. The petitioner herein filed the said suit against the respondent / defendant for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents etc., from in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. Along with the plaint, a list with about 13 documents was filed on behalf of the petitioner / plaintiff. The respondent / defendant filed written statement and contesting the suit. During the course of adducing evidence, the petitioner / plaintiff filed the above mentioned I.A.No.13 of 2025 under Order 7, R.14 (1) and Section 151 of C.P.C., to condone the delay in filing the Original Power of Attorney dated 11.09.2009 executed by one Rajeswari @ Ramadevi, wife of M.Ramesh Varma in favour of one A.Gopal Raju and I.A.No.14 of 2025 under Order 18 Rule 17 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to recall P.W.1 and to mark the said document dated 11.09.2009 to prove his case. Vide separate docket orders dated 15.07.2025, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), dismissed the applications. Aggrieved by the same, the instant revisions came to be filed and are disposed of by this Common Order. 3 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the impugned orders are not sustainable, as the learned Trial Court went wrong in not considering the matter in the proper perspective. He submits that the document which is sought to be marked is original Power of Attorney dated 11.09.2009 and the said document is crucial to prove petitioner’s case. He submits that as the said document was not filed at the time of instituting the suit, P.W.1 was sought to be recalled for the purpose of marking the same. He further submits that the learned Trial Court ought to have appreciated that recalling of the witness / P.W.1 for the purpose of marking additional document, even at the belated stage of the suit can be considered, if the document is essential for proper and effective adjudication of the dispute, that by marking the said document, no prejudice would be caused, further that it would be subject to proof, relevancy etc. Making the said submissions and contending that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside, the learned counsel seeks to allow the Revision Petitions. He also placed reliance on the decision of a learned Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Bada Bodiah & Another v. Bada Linga Swamy & Ors.1 . 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent made submissions to sustain the impugned order. He submits that while there is no dispute with regard to the settled position that the documents, which are relevant for proper adjudication of the lis that are not filed along with suit, can be filed subsequently, by making an appropriate application, he submits that in the plaint, there is no averment / plea with regard to execution of the General 1 2003 (1) APLJ 141 4 Power of Attorney, dated 11.09.2009 and therefore, in the absence of any pleading about the execution, the said document cannot be marked in evidence. He also contends that in the affidavits filed in support of I.A.No.13 and I.A.No.14 of 2025, except bald averment with regard to delay, nothing is stated as to purpose for which, the said document is sought to be marked by recalling P.W.1. He submits that the learned Trial Court, after considering the matter had rightly opined that no evidence can be adduced beyond the pleadings and the said position is well settled. Contending that there are no merits in the Revisions, the learned counsel urges for dismissal of the same. He also placed reliance on the decisions in D.Nagammani v. Ganji Subbarayudu & Others2 and Nanjunda Setty @ N.S.Tallam and Others v. M/s.Tallam Subbaraya Setty & Sons and Others3. 6. On an appreciation of the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, the point that arises for adjudication is : Whether the orders under challenge warrants interference by this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case? 7. At the outset, it may be noted that in the list of documents, filed on behalf of the plaintiff (Pg.22), the General Power of Attorney stated to have been executed on 11.09.2009 was not included. The purpose for which it is sought to be marked has not been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. On a reading of the 2nd page of the plaint, there is an averment to the effect that, plaintiff and 1)V.Rama Rao, 2) A.Tirumalanath, 3) V.Rambabu, 4) 2 2008 (6) ALD (NOC 77) 3 ILR 2004 KAR 924 5 C.K.Murali Krishna Reddy filed O.E.A.P.No.18 of 2011 in O.S.No.27 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Puttur against A.Gopala Raju (Registered General Power of Attorney holder dt. 11.05.2006) for execution of Registered Sale Deed in respect of the plaint schedule property. There is no whisper about the execution of power of attorney, much less dated 11.09.2009 by the said Smt.Rajeshwari @ Rama Devi, W/o.Ramesh Varma in favour of the said A.Gopala Raju. In such circumstances, marking of the said original Power of Attorney dated 11.09.2009, even assuming that the same was not filed by oversight, at the time of filing of the suit, cannot be allowed, as the same is beyond the pleadings and the view expressed by the learned Trial Court, cannot be found fault with. 8. While there is no dispute that a document not produced with the plaint or before framing of issues can be filed with an application seeking leave to produce the same and the Court has discretion to receive such documents, which are not produced earlier, as laid down in Bada Bodiah’s case referred to supra, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 9. In Nanjunda Setty’s case, a learned Judge of Karnataka High Court, inter alia, opined that the only consideration which should weigh with the Court while receiving any documents at a belated stage, should be the relevancy of the said documents to the matter in issue and for doing justice to the parties. 10. Be that as it may. 6 11. The decision in Vengala Narayana Reddy v. Vengala Ramana Reddy4 relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent, aptly applies to the facts of the present case. The Revision Petitioner / Plaintiff in the said case sought to file documents by reopening the evidence of plaintiff and to recall P.W.1. The applications filed by him were dismissed and a learned Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh was not inclined to interfere with the orders of the Trial Court holding inter alia that in the plaint, the plaintiff did not refer to the documents sought to be received in evidence. 12. That apart, I.A.No.14 of 2025 was filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of C.P.C., which provides that the Court may recall and examine the witness at any stage of a suit. It is settled position in Law that power under Order XVIII Rule 17 of C.P.C., has to be exercised sparingly (See: Vadiraj Nagappa Vernekar(dead) through Lrs., v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate (reported in (2009) 4 SCC 410). This Court see no such circumstances, which warrant recalling of the witness as sought for, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13. In the light of the discussion supra and as this Court see no illegality or perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the orders under challenge, the point is answered against the petitioner. 4 2008 (6) ALD (NOC 76) 7 14. Accordingly, the Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, all pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Dt. 31.01.2026 BLV 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA C.R.P. Nos: 2352 & 2347 of 2025 Date: 31.01.2026 BLV