APHC010518112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION Between: 1. SYAM SUNDAR MAHESWARI @ SHYAM SUNDER MAHESWARI, A S/O. LATE RATANALAL MAHESWARI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. DIRECTOR, SUBHAM MAHESWARI LIMITED, PENUMULI ROAD, RAIL PETA, MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 1. VARSHIT AQUA WET, Gudivada, rep by its Prop. Sri Atiuri Sridhar, S/o. Basavaiah aged 50 years, OccBusiness, R/o. Gudivada, Krishna District. Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, pleased to The above named petitioners beg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition, having been aggrieved by the order and decree dt. 09.09.2025 passed in I.A.No. the PrI. Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Gudivada IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supp grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.311 of 2015 on the file of the IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2572/2025 SYAM SUNDAR MAHESWARI @ SHYAM SUNDER MAHESWARI, A S/O. LATE RATANALAL MAHESWARI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. SUBHAM MAHESWARI COLD STORAGE PRIVATE LIMITED, PENUMULI ROAD, RAIL PETA, DUGGIRALA VILLAGE AND TUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND VARSHIT AQUA WET, Gudivada, rep by its Prop. Sri Atiuri Sridhar, S/o. Basavaiah aged 50 years, OccBusiness, R/o. Gudivada, Krishna ...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 The above named petitioners beg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition, having been aggrieved by the order and decree dt. ssed in I.A.No.362 of 2025 in O.S.No.311 of 2015 on (Senior Division) at Gudivada following among other 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 stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.311 of 2015 on the file of the IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3163] TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY SYAM SUNDAR MAHESWARI @ SHYAM SUNDER MAHESWARI, A S/O. LATE RATANALAL MAHESWARI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. COLD STORAGE PRIVATE DUGGIRALA VILLAGE AND ...PETITIONER VARSHIT AQUA WET, Gudivada, rep by its Prop. Sri Atiuri Sridhar, S/o. Basavaiah aged 50 years, OccBusiness, R/o. Gudivada, Krishna ...RESPONDENT praying that in the the High Court may be The above named petitioners beg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition, having been aggrieved by the order and decree dt. 362 of 2025 in O.S.No.311 of 2015 on the file of following among other Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated ort of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.311 of 2015 on the file of the 2 CMR,J C.R.P.No.2572 of 2025 PrI. Civil Judge (senior division) at Gudivada, pending disposal of the C.R.P., in the interest of justice and to pas Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J JANAKIRAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. G VIJAYA BABU 3 CMR,J C.R.P.No.2572 of 2025 The Court made the following: ORDER: Assailing the order dated 09.09.2025 passed in I.A.No.362 of 2025 in O.S.No.311 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gudivada, whereby, the petition under Order VII Rule 14(3) of Code of Civil Procedure, to receive the documents after condoning the delay, was allowed, the instant civil revision petition is preferred by the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. J.Janaki Rami Reddy learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.Vijaya Babu, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The parties will be referred as they are arrayed in the plaint. 4. The revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The suit was filed against him by the plaintiff for recovery of money on the basis of the katha said to have been maintained by the plaintiff. The defendant denied the suit claim. The trial of the suit commenced and when the suit is at the stage of arguments, the plaintiff has filed the present application to receive the document in question, namely, the message sent by the plaintiff to the defendant over cell phone relating to payment of the balance money. The trial Court allowed the said petition and permitted to receive the document in question, as a piece of evidence in favour of the plaintiff. 5. According to the plaintiff, since the defendant denied the suit claim and as there is no other evidence available at present, the said message exchanged between the plaintiff and the defendant relating to payment of balance money is the only proof available to substantiate the claim of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the defendant would vehemently contend that the said message is not admissible in evidence as it is not accompanied by the certificate required under Section 65 B of Evidence Act, 1872 and also on the ground that the message cannot be preserved for more than a period of two years, as per the telecommunication guidelines. It is a matter relating to 4 CMR,J C.R.P.No.2572 of 2025 appreciation of evidence relating to the said text message. When the trial Court found that it is a relevant piece of evidence, which is required for the purpose of deciding the controversy in the suit, it cannot be said that the trial Court erred in allowing the petition. At that stage, it is not required to appreciate the evidence on record. The question of appreciating the evidence that is adduced arises in the final adjudication of the suit. Therefore, it is always open to the defendant to question the validity of the said evidence on the aforesaid two grounds in the final adjudication of the suit. 6. Therefore, this Court finds no legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned order of the trial Court and it is not liable to be set-aside. 7. Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The order of the trial Court is confirmed. However, it is left open to the defendant to raise his objection relating to the admissibility of the said evidence and proof of the same at the time of marking the said document and also in the final adjudication of the suit. Ultimately, it is for the trial Court to adjudicate on the basis of the contentions raised by the defendant. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date: 23.01.2026 MDP