APHC010488772021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.1388, 1389 and 1390 of 2021 CRP.No.1388 of 2021 Between: 1.YELAGONDA RAMANJINAMM,, W/O SUNKANNA, 50Y, OCC.CULTIVATION, R/O TARAKAPURAM (KALAVALLI), GOVINDAWADA VILLAGE AND POST, BOMMANAHAL (M), ANANTAPURAM DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1.K KUMAR SWAMY, S/o Kolatla Ramanjuneyulu, 33y, R/o Govindawada Villae and Post, Bommanahal (M), Anantapuram District. ...RESPONDENT 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 toAggrieved by the order in I.A.No.325/2019 in O.S.No.24/2013 dt. 10.02.2021 on the file of the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge, at Rayadurg, Ananthapur District. IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 CRP.No.1389 of 2021 Between: 1.YELAGONDA RAMANJINAMM, W/O. SUNKANNA, AGED 50 YEARS OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O. TARAKAPURAM (KALAVALLI), GOVINDAWADA VILLAGE AND POST, BOMMANAHAL (M) ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1.K KUMAR SWAMY, S/o. Kolatla Ramanjuneyulu, Aged 33 years, R/o. Govindawada Village and Post, Bommanahal (M) Anantapuram District. ...RESPONDENT 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 toAggrieved by the order in I.A. No. 326/ 2019 in O.S. No. 24/2013 dated 10.02.2021 on the file of the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge, at Rayadurg, Ananthapur District 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 CRP.No.1390 of 2021 Between: 1.YELAGONDA RAMANJINAMM,, W/O SUNKANNA, 50Y, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O TARAKAPURAM (KALAVALLI), GOVINDAWADA VILLAGE AND POST, BOMMANAHAL (M), ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.K KUMAR SWAMY, S/o. Kolatla Ramanjuneyulu, 33y, R/o Govindawada Village and Post, Bommanahal (M), Anantapuram District. ...RESPONDENT 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 toAggrieved by the order in I.A.No. 324/2019 in O.S.No.24/2013 dt. 10.02.2021 on the file of the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge, at Rayadurg, Ananthapur District. IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SAZID KALLUR Counsel for the Respondent: 1.N PREMRAJ The Court made the following Common Order : 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.1388, 1389 and 1390 of 2021 COMMON ORDER: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the common order dated 10.02.2021 passed in I.A.Nos.324, 325 and 326 of 2019 in O.S.No.24 of 2013 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff in the suit had filed three interlocutory applications seeking the relief of receiving additional documents, recalling the plaintiff for marking the said documents, and reopening the evidence of the plaintiff. The learned Judge allowed the interlocutory applications, observing that the documents proposed to be marked could be received subject to proof and relevancy, and directed that the petitioner shall complete his evidence within ten days and get ready for arguments. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff proposed to mark the revenue records relating to the year 2018- 19, whereas suit for injunction was filed in the year 2013. When the respondent seeks relief of injunction in a suit filed in the year 2013, it is the bounden duty of the respondent to establish the cause of action as on the date of filing of the suit for maintaining the suit. 4. It is also submitted that the objection raised by the petitioner was not considered by the learned trial Court. It is also submitted that the 4 subsequent documents cannot be relied upon for deciding the suit filed in the year 2013. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent is required to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss for grant of injunction, and must substantiate the cause of action with documentary evidence as on the date of institution of the suit. He further submitted that the proposed documents relating to the year 2018-19 i.e., almost six years after filing of the suit for injunction and therefore ought not to have been permitted to be marked. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the suit would have to be decided on merits, and that the proposed documents are only for collateral purposes and as observed by the learned Judge, the documents would be marked subject to proof and relevancy. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material on record. 8. The learned Judge has stated the reasons for allowing the interlocutory applications and has also granted an opportunity to the petitioner for adducing documentary evidence for effective adjudication of dispute between the parties. As such, permitted the petitioner to file the additional documents subject to proof and relevancy. 9. Insofar as, the grounds raised in the Civil Revision Petitions are concerned, the relevancy of the documents which is proposed to be 5 marked subject to objection would have to stand the test of proof and relevancy during the course of trial. It is always open for the petitioner to raise such grounds as a legal ground during the course of cross examination or at the time of arguments. 10. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the common order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg in IA.Nos.324, 325 and 326 of 2019 in OS.No.24 of 2013 is well considered and well reasoned and does not deserve any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. 11. Considering the submissions that the suit has been pending since the year 2013, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg shall endeavour to complete the trial and dispose off the suit on merits within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dated 23.02.2026 KGM 6 114 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1388, 1389 and 1390 of 2021 Dated 23.02.2026 7 KGM