(Prayer: 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 by setting aside the impugned order passed in I.A. No. 234/2022 in O.S. No. 205/2016 dated 18.01.2023 passed by the Honble Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, by allowing the petition tiled by petitioner for receiving the documents after condoning the delay in filing the same on behalf of the Petitioner in O.S. No. 205/2016 and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

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 suspend the impugned order passed in 1.A. No. 234/2022 in O.S. No. 205/2016 dated 18.01.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition and to pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

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 order passed by this Hon'ble High Court of AP dated 20- 02-2023 in CRP No. 372 of 2023 to until further orders pending disposal of the above Civil Petition and pass)

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the orders dated 18.01.2023 passed in I.A.No.234 of 2022 in O.S.No.205 of 2016 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

2. The Revisionist is the petitioner/ plaintiff whereas the respondent sare the respondents/ defendants in I.A.No.234 of 2022 in O.S.No.205 of 2016.

3. The facts that led to filing of the Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are as follows:

                  (i) The petitioner filed the suit vide O.S.No.205 of 2016 seeking damages of Rs.12,00,000/- from the defendants jointly and severally. In the said suit, he filed I.A.No.234 of 2022 under Order –VII, Rule-14 of the Code of Civil Procedure to receive documents enlisted in the petition by condoning the delay.

                  (ii) The respondents filed counter contending that there was no reference of the documents sought to be received in the plaint and they are irrelevant and hence the said documents cannot be received.

                  (iii) The learned trial Judge, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the petition holding that there was no pleading regarding the proposed documents in the plaint and hence the said documents cannot be received.

                  (iv) The said dismissal order is assailed in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5, 9 & 10.

5. Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition before the trial Court and grounds of Civil Revision Petition would contend that the documents now sought to be received are crucial for the purpose of substantiating the claim of the petition made in the plaint, however, the learned trial Judge erroneously dismissed the petition. He would further contend that the learned trial Judge committed an error in entering into the arena of deciding relevancy and admissibility of the documents prematurely, which stage has not yet reached and therefore, the impugned order is perverse and the same has to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

                  In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision in Dodda Jesintha v. Yelapati Rathnaker Reddy and another(2024(3) ALD 589(TS)).

6. On the other hand, Sri S.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 5, 9 & 10 while reiterating the contents of the counter filed before the trial court would contend that without filing any petition seeking leave, the documents cannot be received, that in the absence of any foundational pleadings in the plaint regarding the proposed documents, they cannot at all be received and thus the learned trial Judge upon analysing the facts in proper perspective rightly dismissed the petition and the said order does not require any interference of this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

                  In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision in Bolla Ajay Babu v. Nalla Manikyamma(2010(1) ALD 163).

7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. It is fairly settled and so also observed in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for respondent that documents cannot be received in evidence by granting leave in the absence of any reference about the same in the pleadings.

9. In Levaku Pedda Reddamma and others v. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma and others, C.A.No.4096 off 2022 @ SLP (C) No.7452/2022 referred to In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Courts below have grossly erred in not permitting the defendants to produce the documents, 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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that It is well settled principle of law that rules of procedure are hand-maid off 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. The other contention of the learned counsel for respondent that without any petition seeking leave, the petition filed to receive documents is not maintainable, is unsustainable, since filing the petition praying the court to receive the documents, itself amounts to seeking leave of the court.

10. In view of the above observations, the learned trial Judge while dealing with the petition filed for granting leave to receive the documents, cannot embark upon to decide the relevancy and admissibility of those documents. Admittedly, that stage has not yet reached and mere reception of documents would not cause any prejudice to the other side. It is also fairly settled that mere receiving of documents would not automatically give any right to the party to mark those documents, which would always be subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility.

11. No doubt, the petitioner filed the petition seeking to receive certain documents nearly six (06) years after filing the suit and this shows that he is not diligent in prosecuting the case. The same can be compensated by awarding costs to the other side.

12. In the above view of the matter, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 18.01.2023 passed in I.A.No.234 of 2022 in O.S.No.205 of 2016 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor. Consequently, I.A.No.234 of 2022 in O.S.No.205 of 2016 is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) by the petitioner to the contesting respondents of this Civil Revision Petition. The trial Court shall receive the documents to mark subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.