APHC010430972026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE 20th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2313/2026 Between: 1. ASHOK KUMAR MEHTA, S/O. PUKH RAJ, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,PROPRIETOR OF RAHUL BULLION, C/O. R.B. GOLD, SHOP NO.1A,2ND FLOOR, E.V. PLAZA, RAJAGOPALACHARI STREET,GOVERNORPET, VIJAYAWADA - 520002. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KAVITHA JAIN GOWANI, W/o K Vikas Jain,Aged about 40 years, R/o 16/159,Madvapathi Vari Street, Nellore - 524001. ...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 tomay be pleased to allow the Civil Revision Petition and setting aside the Docket Order Dt.17.07.2026 in I.A No 189 of 2026 in O.S No 317 of 2017 on the file of court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District, and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the interests of justice and equity. IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 stay all further proceedings, including the personal appearance of the Petitioners No. 1 to 8 in C.C. No. 449 of 2025 on the file of the Hon’ble Court of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the present Criminal Petition, Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. KARTHIK SHAH The Court made the following: ORDER The defendant in the suit filed the above revision against the docket order dated 17.07.2026 in I.A.No.189 of 2026 in O.S.No.317 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nellore. 2. Plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.317 of 2017 against the defendant for recovery of amount. The trial Court initially dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 10.03.2022. The plaintiff filed appeal A.S.No.69 of 2022 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Nellore. The appellate Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the trial Court. While remanding the suit, the appellate Court observed in Paragraph-10 (vi) as follows: “(vi) Here, it is to be noted that the defendant admits to having paid TDS as well as income tax returns and defendant’s plea of discharge is negatived by the Court through the impugned judgment vide issue No.1. The trial Court’s omission to consider the admitted income tax returns filed by the defendant and giving an opportunity to him. The finding of the trial Court in not considering the admitted income tax returns filed by the defendant and not giving specific finding whether such income tax returns will extend the limitation or not and not giving an opportunity to the plaintiff for exhibiting the income tax returns admissions in the manner known to law and to adduce necessary evidence and it impact on the claim of the plaintiff goes to the very root of the case. Therefore, the established circumstances since the plaintiff being the appellant in the present appeal filed I.A.No.236/2025 seeking permission to adduce additional evidence, this Court is of the opinion that all these facts wants re-appreciation with opportunity to both parties to render the substantial justice. Therefore, without going further deep into the merits of the case, it could be safely held that the judgment and decree of the trial Court are found to be unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. The matter requires remand for fresh trial and permitting both sides to adduce further evidence if they so desire.” Thereafter the plaintiff in the suit filed I.A.No.189 of 2026 under Order XVI Rule 1 and 7 r/w Section 151 of CPC, to issue summons to the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada to produce the certified copy of “Tax Audit Reports of Rahul Bullion”, to which the defendant is proprietor for the financial years commencing from 2011-2012 to 2015-2016 and to give evidence. 3. 3. The said application was opposed by the defendant. 4. The trial Court, by docket order dated 17.07.2026, allowed the application. 5. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada appeared before the trial Court on 10.08.2026 and gave evidence. The documents were marked as Exs.A7 to A11. 6. Sri Siva Prasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that summoning the Income Tax Officer is beyond the scope of remand. 7. Sri Karthik Shah, learned counsel for the respondent, supported the order of the trial Court. 8. As seen from the judgment of the first appellate Court, it was observed that the matter requires remand for fresh trial and permitting both sides to adduce further evidence if they so desire. Given the pleadings, the plaintiff filed the application to summon the Income Tax Officer to produce the certified copy of Tax Audit Reports. In fact, after the application was allowed, the Income Tax Officer gave evidence and the documents were marked as exhibits. The trial Court exercised its jurisdiction vested in it and passed the order. This Court does not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There are no merits in this revision, and hence, it is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is Dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD