RUPANAGUNTIA MARUTHI SAI RAMANA SASI KIRAN v. GUNDAVARAPU BHARATHI

1. RUPANAGUNTIA MARUTHI SAI RAMANA SASI KIRAN,, S/O.R.T.VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED.39 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 101,5TH PARK ROAD, SRINIVASA BRUNDAVANAM, PADUGUPADU VILLAGE, KOVUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND

GUNDAVARAPU BHARATHI, W/o.R.M.S.R.Sasi Kiran, Aged.35 years, D.No.8/501, Ramnganayakulapet, Nellore Town, SPSR Nellore District ...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 set aside the order of learned judge. Family Court cum 6th Additional District and Sessions Court, Nellore as passed in I.A.No.268/2024 in FCOP.NO.369/2024, on 18th Dec, 2025 and consequently allow the I.A.No.268/2025 by directing the trial court to receive the documents filed therein in the interest of equity and justice. 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings including conduct of enquiry in FCOP NO.369/2025 except the hearing of LA No.2047/2024 therein i.e., in FCOP NO.369/2025 on the file of learned judge. Family Court cum 6th Additional District and Sessions Court, Nellore, pending disposal of the above CRP and Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. P VEERRAJU Counsel for the Respondent:

1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI The Court made the following order: Heard Ms. K.Vaishnavi, learned counsel representing Sri P.Veerraju, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for the respondent.

The petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.369 of 2024 filed the above revision petition against the order dated 18.12.2025 in I.A.No.268 of 2025.

The petitioner filed F.C.O.P.No.369 of 2024 under Sections 7, 9, 10 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 r/w Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 on the file of the Family Court, Nellore. The respondent filed a counter opposing the F.C.O.P.

Pending F.C.O.P., the petitioner filed I.A.No.268 of 2025 under Order VII Rule 14(3) r/w 151 CPC to receive the documents mentioned in the petition. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was pleaded that, at the time of filing of F.C.O.P., all the documents were not filed. Later, he downloaded copies from WhatsApp, email and his phone. There was no laches in filing all the documents at the earliest point in time. The respondent filed a counter opposing the application, stating that the documents filed by the petitioner are not in accordance with the law.

The learned trial Court dismissed the application, holding that no reasons were assigned and that the petitioner failed to produce a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.

Initially, the matter was referred to mediation. The learned Mediator submitted a failed report. The point for consideration is whether the Order under revision warrants interference.

The facts narrated need not be reiterated. Order VII Rule 14 prescribes the procedure regarding the production of documents on which the plaintiff relies. Sub-rule (3) enables the petitioner/plaintiff to produce the documents, with the leave of the Court, which were not filed at the time of institution of the suit.

In the case at hand, the petitioner contended that, at the time of filing the F.C.O.P., all the documents were not readily available and that he later obtained certain documents and downloaded certain documents WhatsApp, email and his phone. A formal counter was filed by the respondent.

The learned trial court should have considered the fact that the trial in O.P has not been commenced. The petitioner has assigned reasons for not filing the documents along with the F.C.O.P. Whether the petitioner filed a certificate under Section 65-B is not germane at this juncture. Receiving documents and admitting or exhibiting them are two different stages.

The trial in the F.C.O.P is yet to be commenced. Mere receipt of the documents does not mean that they are exhibited automatically. The respondent, when the documents are sought to be marked, will have an opportunity to object if the documents are otherwise not admissible in evidence. One should keep in mind the distinction between the document sued on and a document relied upon by a party as evidence in support of a claim.

If the trial Court opines that the application was filed belatedly, it could have imposed costs. The trial court should have considered that the procedure is a handmaid of justice. The trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it.

Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the order under revision warrants interference. Accordingly, I.A.No.268 of 2025 in F.C.O.P.No.369 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, stands allowed on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent on or before 14.08.2026. Upon making the payment, the petitioner shall file a memo before the trial Court. The documents received shall be subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility.