APHC010598972025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY, THE 10th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3122/2025 Between: 1. G SREELATHA, W/O G.S.SELVARAJ, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3 - 549/B, GANDIA STREET, GREAMSPET, CHITTOOR. ...PETITIONER AND 1. N SREENIVASA RAO, S/o Late N.Venkateswarulu, Hindu, Aged about 51 Years, R/o D.No.24 - 371/A, Bharath Nagar, C.G. Palle Post, Chittoor ...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 to allow the Revision Petition, set aside the Order in Order in I.A.No.18 of 2025 in O.S. No.10 of 2022 dated 02.09.2025, passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor and pass 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 Pleased to grant stay in O.S.No.10 of 2022 on the file of the Learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor, pending disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. LAKSHMI SANKAR B The Court made the following ORDER : Heard Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Lakshmi Sankar B, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Assailing the order, dated 02.09.2025 in I.A.No.18 of 2025 in O.S.No.10 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor, the plaintiff filed the above civil revision petition (for short ‘the revision’). 3. The revision petitioner, being the plaintiff, instituted suit O.S.No.10 of 2022 against the respondent/defendant seeking delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property, arrears, etc. 4. The defendant filed a written statement and is contesting the suit. 5. Pending the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.167 of 2024 under Order VII Rule 14 (3) C.P.C., to receive certified copies of 1) unregistered rental agreement dated 12.04.2017 for Rs.40,100/- in RCC No.15 of 2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor and 2) unregistered rental agreement dated 12.04.2017 for a monthly rent of Rs.79,900/- in RCC No.5 of 2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor. 6. The said application was opposed by the defendant by filing a counter. 7. The trial Court, by docket order dated 29.01.2025, allowed the application and received the documents subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility. Page 3 of 6 8. Thereafter, the defendant filed I.A.No.18 of 2025 under Order XIII Rules 3 and 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘C.P.C.’) to reject the documents filed in I.A.No.167 of 2024, as they are inadmissible and liable for impounding. 9. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended, inter alia, that the plaintiff obtained certified copies of the aforementioned rental agreements and filed interlocutory applications to receive those documents. Those documents are insufficiently stamped, and hence, they are inadmissible in evidence, and they are liable to be rejected for want of stamp duty and registration. Thus, prayed to reject the documents received in I.A.No.167 of 2024. 10. The respondent/plaintiff filed a counter and opposed the petition. 11. The trial Court, by order dated 02.09.2025, allowed the application and rejected the documents mentioned supra. 12. The point for consideration is : Whether the order, dated 02.09.2025 in I.A.No.18 of 2025 in O.S.No.10 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor suffers from any illegality warranting interference? 13. As seen from the order under revision, the I.A.No.167 of 2024 under Order VII Rule 14 (3) C.P.C., to receive certified copies, filed by the plaintiff was allowed, subject to admissibility, proof and relevancy. The trial court, having allowed the application, should have waited till they were confronted with the witness. Mere receipt of the documents, pending the suit, by virtue of an interlocutory order, does not mean that they are exhibited/admitted in the evidence. When the documents are confronted with the witness, all objections relating to their admissibility will be adjudicated. 14. It seems the trial court was swayed by the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner in I.A. that the respondent, who is the plaintiff in the suit, intends to mark unregistered rental agreements, and in fact, they are not properly stamped and registered. No doubt, the documents received are not properly stamped. However, it is no ground to reject the same at this stage. Receiving a document and admitting the document in evidence are different steps. Rejecting the documents, even before tendered in evidence, by entertaining I.A.No.18 of 2025, is impermissible. Order XIII Rule 3 C.P.C. enables the Court to reject a document if it is irrelevant or inadmissible, and Order XIII Rule 8 C.P.C. prescribes that the Court may order any document to be impounded. 15. If the documents require stamp duty and penalty as contended by the defendant, the trial Court has jurisdiction to impound the documents as per Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. If the documents cannot be impounded, they can be rejected from being exhibited even for a collateral purpose. However, rejecting the documents, even before they are exhibited, in the opinion of this Court, is impermissible, and the trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction. If the order is allowed to continue, it results in a miscarriage of justice. The observations of the learned trial court regarding the secondary evidence, at this stage, are unwarranted. 16. Given the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order, dated 02.09.2025 in I.A.No.18 of 2025 in O.S.No.10 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor, is hereby set aside. However, this order will not preclude the defendant from objecting to the admissibility of the documents when they are sought to be marked. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 10.07.2026 Ikn Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3122 of 2025 Date : 10.07.2026 ikn