(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 toPleased to allow the civil revision petition by setting aside the Order dated 09-04-2025 passed in I.A.No. 60/2025 in O.S.No. 184/2012, by the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Macherla 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 stay all further proceedings in O.S.No. 184 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Macherla and pass

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 topleased to allow the civil revision petition by setting aside the Order dated 09-04-2025 passed in I.A.No. 61/2025 in O.S.No. 184/2012, by the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Macherla

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 stay all further proceedings in O.S.No. 184 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Macherla

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 the above-named Petitioner beg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition against the Order dated 09-04-2025 passed in LA.No. 63/2025 in O.S.No. 184/2012, by the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Macherla for the following grounds

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 stay all further proceedings in O.S.No. 184 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Macherla

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 by setting aside the Order dated 09-04-2025 passed in I.A.No. 62/2025 in O.S.No. 184/2012, by the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Macherla 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 may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No. 184 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)Macherla and pass

Common Order:

1. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Macherla in I.A.Nos.60, 61, 62 & 63 of 2025 in O.S.No.184 of 2012.

2. Inasmuch all the petitions covered under the impugned orders have been passed in the same suit and as the parties to all these Civil Revision Petitions are common, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The facts that led to filing of these Civil Revision Petitions, in brief, are that:

                  (i) The petitioner filed the suit vide O.S.No.184 of 2012 for specific performance of agreement of sale. When the said suit was coming up for arguments, the petitioner filed I.A.No.60 of 2025 for recalling P.W.1 for the purpose of marking documents; I.A.No.61 of 2025 praying to condone the delay in filing the documents; I.A.No.62 of 2025 to reopen the suit for the purpose of marking the documents and to send summons to the Bank Manager, Union Bank, Macherla Branch for the purpose of producing admitted signatures of the respondent/defendant and I.A.No.63 of 2025 to direct the respondent/defendant to furnish his account number in Union Bank. The respondent/ defendant resisted the claim made by the petitioner by filing counter.

                  (ii) The learned trial Judge upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusing the material available on record, dismissed the petitions.

                  (iii) The said dismissal orders have been assailed in these Civil Revision Petitions.

4. Heard Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri G.Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for respondent, in all these Civil Revision Petitions.

5. Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petitions and the grounds of revision would contend that the documents now filed by the petitioner are very much essential and crucial to prove his contentions and hence they are to be received and are to be marked by recalling P.W.1. He would further contend that issuing summons to the Branch Manager for cause production of signatures of the defendant of the relevant period is very much needed to disprove the contention of the defendant regarding forgery of the suit agreement of sale; however, the learned trial Judge upon misconception of facts erroneously dismissed the petitions. He would further contend that to deprive a party to the suit not to file documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice and procedure is handmaid of justice and procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in way of court while doing substantial justice. He would further contend that in case sufficient cause is shown for filing the documents at the hearing of the suit or at the end of trial, such cause shown should receive a liberal construction so as to advance the cause of substantial justice, more particularly when the documents sought to be filed, in the opinion of the court, are relevant and may have bearing on the aspects to be taken into consideration. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petitions.

                  In support of his contentions the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions in (1) Levaku Pedda Reddamma & Ors. V. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma & Anr.( 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 533), (2) Sugandhi (dead) by Legal Representatives and another v. P.Rajkumar represented by His Power Agent Imam Oli ((2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 706) and (3) John Santiyago and others vs. Clement Dass and others(2013 SCC OnLine AP 834).

6. Sri G.Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, while reiterating the contents of the counter filed before the trial Court, would contend that the learned trial Judge upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having held that the proposed documents are no way connected to the relief sought in the suit, rightly dismissed the petitions and the said well considered order does not require interference of this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petitions.

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

8. In Levaku Pedda Reddamma & Ors. (supra 1), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that to deprive a party to the suit not to file documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice.

9. Sugandhi (dead) by Legal Representatives and another (supra 2), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus:

                  “9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not serious cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the documents.

                  10. ……..It cannot be disputed that these documents are necessary for arriving at a just decision in the suit. We are of the view that the courts below ought to have granted leave to produce these documents.”

10. In John Santiyago and others (supra 3), a coordinate bench of this Court held thus:

                  “9. It is well settled principle that in case sufficient cause is shown for filing the documents at the hearing of the suit and/or at the end of the trial, such cause shown should receive a liberal construction so as to advance the cause of substantial justice, more particularly when the documents sought to be filed, in the opinion of the Court, are relevant and may have bearing on the aspects to be taken into consideration for the determination of the real controversy and the principal issue/s involved in the matter/suit. And what constitutes a sufficient cause always depends upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case……”

11. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale. In the written statement, the respondent/defendant denied to have executed the suit agreement of sale contending that the suit agreement of sale is a fabricated and forged document.

12. When the said suit stood posted for arguments, the petitioner filed petitions covered under these Civil Revision Petitions. Vide I.A.No.61 of 2025, the petitioner sought to file Mee seva copy of mortgage deed executed by petitioner in favour of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Macherla and photo copy of Notarized affidavit dated 31.08.2012. Admittedly, the scribe of agreement of sale was examined as P.W.2, whose original notarized affidavit dated 31.08.2012 was filed along with the suit. According to the petitioner, there are some material discrepancies between the notarized affidavit and deposition of P.W.2 and hence sought to recall him (P.W.1) for the purpose of marking the documents, by way of filing I.A.No.60 of 2025. Further, I.A.No.63 of 2025 was filed to direct the defendant to furnish his account number in Union Bank of India, Macherla Branch and I.A.No.62 of 2025 was filed to summon the Branch Manager, Union Bank, Macherla Branch for the purpose of producing the admitted signatures of the defendant of the relevant period.

13. The suit is of the year 2012. As rightly held by learned trial Judge, the mortgage deed is subsequent to filing of the suit and the original of Notarized affidavit was filed along with the suit. As rightly held by the learned trial Judge the documents are nothing to do for granting or not the relief of specific performance. Therefore, the observations made in the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case on hand.

14. Moreover, the petitioner did not offer any explanation as to why the documents could not be filed earlier till the matter reached the stage of arguments. The learned trial Judge having found that no satisfactory explanation or reason is offered for delayed filing of the documents that too when the matter stood posted for arguments and further observing that the documents are not necessary for granting or not the relief of specific performance rightly dismissed the petitions filed for receiving the documents and recalling P.W.1 for the purpose of marking the said documents. The said orders require no interference.

15. Regarding the relief sought in the other two petitions to direct the defendant to furnish his account and for summoning the Branch Manager, as already stated supra right from the beginning the defendant took a specific stand that the suit agreement of sale is forged and fabricated. Despite such a stand, the petitioner/plaintiff did not take steps to send the document to expert till the suit reached the stage of arguments. The petitions lack any reason as to why such applications could not be filed earlier. Therefore, the trial Judge was right in holding that the petitions lack merit and they were filed only to drag on the proceedings.

16. In the above view of the matter, the orders assailed in these Civil Revision Petitions do not require any interference of this Court. The Civil Revisions Petitions lack merits and deserve dismissal.

17. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand closed.