APHC010540402024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2962/2024 Between: 1. YANAMANDRA MANIKYA MALA, W/O Y A SARMA @ ANKAMA SASTRY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O F 4, SAI PLAZA-LL, GEETHA NAGAR COLONY, SAINADHAPURAM, SECUNDERABAD. ...PETITIONER AND 1. ALAPATI JAGANNATHAM, S/O LATE DR. A V RL GANAPATI SASTRY, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, RETIRED RAILWAY EMPLOYEE, REP. BY HIS SONS/SPA HOLDER ALAPATI SAMEER PAVAN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, SOFTWARE ENGINEER, R/O 29-1353/1/B, PLOT. 46, STREET NO. 2, DEENDAYAL NAGAR, NEREDMET, MALKAJGIRI, HYDERABAD. 2. ALAPATI SUBRAHMANYAM, S/O LATE DR. A V R L GANAPATI SASTRY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O F 4, SAI PLAZA-LL, GEETHA NAGAR, COLONY, SAINADHAPURAM, SECUNDERABAD. 3. MIRIYALA VIJAYA BHANU, W/O SURIONAIDU @ SURYNARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. AGRICULTURAL LABOUR, R/O D.NO- 12-80/C, SUNDARAIAH, NAGAR, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. MARRAPU SAMBASIVA RAO, S/O SIMHACHALAM, AGED 2 ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O D.NO- 74-12-2/9D, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5. LANKA DURGA PRASAD, S/O TATA NAIDU, AGED BAOUT 63 YEARS. BUSINESS, R/O D.NO- 62-7-13, OLD RAMALAYAM STREET, PATAMATALANKA, VIJAYAWADA. 6. PALLEM TIRUMALA RAO, S/0 MANIKYALA RAO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/0 D.NO- 62-7-13, OLD RAMALAYAM STREET PATAMATALANKA, VIJAYAWADA. 7. IMMIDESETTI SRINIVASA RAO, S/0 VENKATA RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/0 D.NO- 31-5-1 A, SAI KUTEER, PRAKASG RAO STREET, NEAR, GOWTHAM MODEL SCHOOL, MARUTHI NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA. 8. M/S INDIA BULLS DOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, , REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, M-62 AND 63, 1ST FLOOR, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI. 9. M/S INDIA BULLS HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATIRY B. RAVI KIRAN, BRANCH CREDIT MANAGER, EMP NO. 180043, O/O IBHFL, D.NO- 40-1-140/3, SRI POTHURI TOWERS, 3RD FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAWADA. ...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 SET-ASIDE order dated 22.10.2024 passed in l.A.No.610/2024 in O.S.No.202 of 2012 on the file of XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, by allowing the Civil Revision Petition in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pending the above civil revision petition grant STAY in all further proceedings in O.S.No:202 of 2012 on the file of XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada in the interest of justice and pass 3 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 extend the Interim Stay granted on 23.12.2024 of all further proceedings in O.S. No: 202 of 2012 on the file of the XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KUNTAMUKKALA SAI SREE SANJAY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. B VAMSI KRISHNA 2. BV.V.N.RAVI KRISHNA The Court made the following: ORDER: Assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.10.2024 passed in I.ANo.610 of 2024 in O.S.No.202 of 2012 on the file of XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The petitioner herein is defendant No.1, respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 9 are the co-defendants in the suit. 3. Respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.202 of 2012 on the file of XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, for declaration of title. In the said suit, subsequent to cross examination of PW1, respondent No.1/plaintiff filed I.A.No.610 of 2024 duly praying the Court to grant leave to file the enclosed documents to be received in evidence and to be marked on behalf of plaintiff. The said application has been 4 opposed by the petitioner herein-defendant No.1 by filing counter inter alia denying the allegations duly contending that those documents are not relevant to the suit. Further, after PW1 examined at length and his evidence went for 1½ month, filing the documents and recalling of PW1 does not arise and to fill up lacunae with a dishonest intention such documents have been filed and prayed to dismiss the said application. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, allowed the said application under its order dated 22.10.2024. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4. Heard Sri Sai Sri Sanjay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Vamsi Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the counter filed to the said interlocutory application and the grounds of revision, submitted that the documents which now the petitioner want to rely are not connected to the suit and the petitioner did not file those documents along with the plaint. Further after completion of cross examination of PW1, such documents are sought to be filed. He further submitted that the party to the said documents is one Sri A.S.S.S.R.A.B.A Gopalam and the said person is no more, as such, those documents cannot be marked through the plaintiff. Despite bringing all these facts to the notice of the Court below, the Court erroneously allowed the said I.A. He further submitted that respondent No.1/plaintiff 5 failed to plead and prove that the documents are relevant for adjudication of the suit. In support of his contention, he relied on paragraph 18 of the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & Anr.1 and accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition and dismiss the I.A.610 of 2024. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff in elaboration to the contents of the affidavit filed in support of I.A.610 of 2024 submitted that at the time of receiving the documents the petitioner cannot have any say he can as well oppose at the time of marking the documents. Relevancy of the documents cannot be looked into at the stage of receiving the documents. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Levaku Pedda Reddamma & Ors. V. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma & Ors2 and Sugandhi (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors v. P.Rajkumar3. The Court below has rightly allowed the said application. The petitioner has not raised or urged any valid grounds warranting the interference of this Court, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Revision. 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 1 2003 Supreme (SC) 994 2 2022(3)Civil C(S.C.) 279 3 AIR 2020 SC 5486 6 8. It is not in dispute that after cross examination of PW1, an interlocutory application vide I.A.No.610 of 2024 has been filed under Order VII Rule 14 (3) and Section 151 CPC duly praying the Court to grant leave for filing the enclosed documents to be received in evidence and to be marked on behalf of the plaintiff. The petitioner herein- defendant No.1 opposed the said application mainly on the ground that those documents are not relevant to the suit and the party to the documents is no more and the plaintiff cannot mark those documents and further, there is a delay in filing those documents. Para 18 of the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder referred supra is extracted hereunder for quick reference: “The learned counsel for the defendant-respondent has relied on The Roman Catholic Mission Vs. The State of Madras & Anr. AIR 1966 SC 1457 in support of his submission that a document not admissible in evidence, though brought on record, has to be excluded from consideration. We do not have any dispute with the proposition of law so laid down in the abovesaid case. However, the present one is a case which calls for the correct position of law being made precise. Ordinarily an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes:- (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken before the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. The later proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is whether 7 an objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, would have enabled the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. The omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. On the other hand, a prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering the evidence, for two reasons: firstly, it enables the Court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the question of admissibility then and there; and secondly, in the event of finding of the Court on the mode of proof sought to be adopted going against the party tendering the evidence, the opportunity of seeking indulgence of the Court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the objection raised by the opposite party, is available to the party leading the evidence. Such practice and procedure is fair to both the parties. Out of the two types of objections, referred to hereinabove, in the later case, failure to raise a prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document, the document itself which is sought to be proved being admissible in evidence. In the first case, acquiescence would be no bar to raising the objection in superior Court.” 9. A plain reading of the above decision would indicate that the Hon’ble Apex Court has illustrated with regard to the admissibility of the documents, which Ordinarily an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes:- (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken before the 8 evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. 10. That particular stage in the firm opinion of this Court has not reached in the present case. It is only at receiving of the documents stage. The petitioner can as well raise objections at the time of marking the documents and the Court will always look into the objections as to admissibility, relevancy and proof. Insofar as delay is concerned, the Apex Court in Levaku Pedda Reddamma referred supra has categorically held that 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. Further, 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. 11. The petitioner cannot oppose in receiving the documents by the trial Court and the documents which are filed can be taken into consideration subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility and the petitioner can as well cross-examine the witness about the validity and 9 verasity of the documents. The judgement relied by the learned counsel for the respondents is applicable to the facts of this case. Further, the trial Court has rightly allowed the application by duly observing the documents filed along with petition will be taken into consideration subject to proof and relevancy and the respondents are at liberty for opposing the marking of the documents. As such, there is no ground made out warranting interference of this Court and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. 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: 12th February, 2026 RKS