The High Court · 2025

...Revision Petitioners/ Plaintiffs 2 AND

1. Yellammolla Narsimlu, S/o Late Pochaiah (died on 091712022) 2. Yellammola Pochaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, Aged 45 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Saibanpet Village, Andole Mandal, Sangareddy District.

3. Yellammolla Nagaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, Aged 42 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Saibanpet Village, Andole lvlandal, Sangareddy District.

4. Yellamolla Ramesh, S/o. Narsaiah, Aged 40 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Saibanpet Village, Andole lvlandal, Sangareddy District.

5. Yellamolla Lachamma, Wo. Late Narsimlu, Aged 75 years, Occ. Household, R/o. H. No. 1-29, Saibanpet Village, Andole Mandal, Sangareddy District. 6. Rukkamma, D/o. Late Narsimlu, Aged 46 years, Occ. Household, R/o. H- No. 1-29, Saibanpet Village, Andole Mandal, Sangareddy District. /. Annamma, Dio. Late Narsimlu, Aged 44 years, Occ. Household' R/o- H No. 'l-29, Saibanpet Village, Andole Mandal, Sangareddy District B. Vijaya, D/o. Late Narsimlu, Aged 43 years, Occ.tlousehold, R/o. H No. '1-29, Saibanpet Village, Andole lvlandal, Sangareddy District. ...RESPONDENTS/ Defendants 'e NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition lnde Section .15.1 CpC praying that in the ciTclrrrrsl3nsss stated ln the-affidavit filed in ,Lrpport of the petition, ihi n,gh court may ,re preased to stay all further proceedin y: in o.S.No. 10 of 2.014 on"the fire of thi: .ru rior civir Judqe cum- Judicial [vagis rate of First crass, Andore at Logip"ip"niirs in; ,b;""?Mr Revision Petition n I t3 interest of Justice. / Counsel for the Petitloner: SRl. R. VINOD REDDY ^.runsel for the Resoondents: NONE APPEARED I'he Court made the f ollowing ORDER: -larllr. THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.25 OF 2025 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 06.12.2024 passed in I.A.No.SB of 2024 in O.S.No.10 of 2O14 by the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Andole at Jogipet.

2. Ileard learned counsel for petitioners. Inspite of service of notice, no representation for respondents. Perused the record

3. An application vide LA.No.S8 of 2O24 is filed by the defendants before the tria-1 Court for receiving of documents. The trial Court ailowed the application on 06.72.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, petit'ioners/ plaintiffs preferred the present rcvision petition.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners stated that the documents are filed r,vith a dela1, of 10 years and there is no explalation rcgarding the delay. The proceedings hled along with the petition under Order VIII Rule 2 (a) are fabricated. The petitioners were not given any opportunity to lead evidence to disprove the ) documents / proceedings filed by the defendants. Therefore, requcsted the Court to sct aside the order of the trial Court.

5. The documents sought to be filed are mentioned below: 2 ;. Ct -.iJicate dated 10.O6.2O14 issued bll th.e ?1u1( haga.th 5k cry l;trtJ. t :e liJicate datect 18. I 1 .2021 ,\le:t',: urtt and 3. (.) t'1a175|1ip Certifi,cate ctaled ltrf'O \,trlole, McLnrla I tssued bty, Lu:,2r.t tcLtal1a.lh

31.08.2006 t.;:;t eC by 6 In th.- : - l)licatiorl, it u.as simply statccl th.t I I (r locuments were misplacr cL in Counsel,s place and they u,ere 1 r, rct,d out and immediatell, f l,:ci an application to receive thenr. lr tlrc counter filecl by resno llents, they ha'e raised objectiorr arc state<i that all the threc cJ r:uments r,r,ere cancelled but the petitioner clid not disclose thrI r 6n6sllation, as such the docur-ren s c anr-rot he received in r,..,ir e rn ce.

7. Plaintiffs s,rated that they came up with the eLppl cation at the time of e,vir e nce of p.W. 1 , as such, defendants I a s no liberty to lead an_v e.iclence to disprove the saicl docurn rr-r s. The counsel befo:-c he trial Court filecl the clocuments at the stage of defendants' evr .lence and not mentioned regarclirrp the said documents. ,l.t e lgritten statement uras filed in thr. ..'e :rr 2O14 and they r,vere, I l:cl at a belated stage nearly alter I il i e ars an<l simply state.<_l t_h r rhe1, rirere misplacecl and the reasoll: s atecl bv them for the ceL r is not satisfactorv. B. Learned counsel for petitioners relied upon a decision of this Court in Managing Director, APSR Tq Hgderabad and others Vs P.V.Surya Naraganal, in which it was held as follows: Admitted.ly, in the present suit, recording of euidence on behalf of the ptaintiffs come to an end. Dxcept stating that at the tlme of ftting counter oncl chief-examination ctffi.douits the clocuments could not be ftled and they couLd be troced recently, no other reoson is fotlhcoming nor did the petitioners stated. cleorly tlrc reasons for no ftling the said documents along u-,ith Lhe raitten stotement. If the reason as stated. in the present aJJidauit is treated as a reasonable one, the s(7nLe can be a reason in each and euery case. In the cons[dered opinion ol this Cour1, the soid reason asstgned bg the petitioners heretn bg any stretch of imag[nation cannot be satd to be a ualid reason. 'fhe petitioners herein euen did not stote in the afJidauit that d.espite their due diligence, the proposed doanments could not be trctced out at the releuant point of time. g . This Cou rt finds that the Lrial Court erroneously ailowed the application and is liable to be set aside.

10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order o[ the trial Court dated 06.12.2024 passed in I.A.No.88 of 2024 in O.S.No.10 ol 2014. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stald closed ?oWtH) hve,ny SD/. T.TIRUMALA DEVI PUTY REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER The Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate Jogipet. First Class, Andole at To 1

2. One CC to SRI. R. VINOD REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI .J. Two CD Copies #- ,/'--1':. ol1 t:: i r.' :) 04 lljil 2m \i. 'l\... ,: l. -- HIGH GOURT ' ^ rED:26/03/2025 ORDER CRP.No.25 of 2025 .\I-I.OWING 1'l ll-. ( tt\ 'l ttl:VISION pE iltTON WITHOLIT C]I]SI']S ilIG t} 4 T,iI',,i