The High Court · 2025

4. Alla Srinivas, :S/o late Alla l.akshmikantham, Age.43 years, Occ. Software Engineer at US,A, Presently residing at Jagtial Town and District. .,, RESPONDENTSiPETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS

5. Bharathanr Susheela, Wo. late Bharatham Kashinatham, Aged about 85 years, Occ. Hr:ttsewife, R/o.H.No.1-1-44l5lD'14, Perikapally Grampanchayath, Jagtial [\rlandal, Jagtial District.

6. Arike Karrala, Wo. Narayana, Age.75 years, Occ.Household, Fl/o l l.No.7-3- 17112, Vljztyap'uri Colony, Jagtial Town and District 7- Arike Rad ra, Uy'/o. Narayana, Age.63 years, Occ. Household, Rro H . No. 1 0- 56/4, Raikal Tor,vn, Jagtial District.

8. Nimishakervr V'rj;aya, Wo. Surender, Age.63 years, Occ.Househ'lld, R/o. H.No 20-1, Raikal To'rvn, Jagtial District.

9. Nimishakervr Nlagaraju, S/c. Surender, Age.38 years, Occ Private Employee, R/o. H.No 20-1, Raikal Town, Jagtial District.

10. (Respondr--nts 5, to 9 are not necessary parties to this petition) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition urrder liection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in s;upport of the petition, the High Court may re pleased to grant interim stay of alt further proceedings in the suit O.S.No.2 of 2019 on the file of the Hon'ble Princip,al District Judge at Jagtial in the interest of justice pending disposal of above revision petition lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under llection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may lre pleased to extend the inter m orler granted earlier in lA No 1 of 2024 in CRP No 2127 of 2024. dated 1917.2'.A24 in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above civil revision petition. Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. S SURENDER REDDY Counsel for the Res;pondents: SRI. J. KANAKAIAH SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. NARENDER JALLI The Court made the following: ORDER i HON,BLE SRI IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIvIL REVISION PETITONN o.21270 F 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is f iied assailing the order d.ated 27.06'2024 in I A No'5 63 of 2024 in O S No'2 of 2O1r9 passed by the Principal District Judge at Jagtial' 2. Heard Sri S Surender Reddy' learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri J.Kanakaiah, learned senior counsel representing Sri Narendar Jalli' Iearned counsel for respondents on record.

3. The petitioner No 1 herein is the defendant (died) (his LRs i.e., petitioners 2 to 8 were brought on record); respondent Nos'1 to 4 are the plaintiffs before the trial Court For convenience' hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

4. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present Civil Revision Petition are that the plaintiff No 1 fited a suit in O'S No 2 of 2[19on the file of Il Additional District Judge' Karimnagat at Jagtial for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule r ) I,NA,J cR" t\'a 2t27 oJ2024 properties Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the brother and sister, respectively. of the plaintiff No.1. It is coniended that or.iginaily properties u.ere purchased by their father Iate Muthi Ramulu in the nanc of their mother viz., Alla Devamma ancl th:ir father died in the lear 7962 and their mother diecl in the year 1999 and the plaintif[ No.l claimed half share of the schedule prcperties.. It is conterLcled that defendant No.1, who worked asr District Revenue Olficer, taking advantage of his official positior_r, ggt all the proF,s11j€.; transferred and recorded in the name of his wife i.e., Alla SaLlvamma. During pendency of the suit, plaintiff No.1 expired and his Iegal heirs i.e., plaintiffs 2 to 4 were brought on record.

5. Du ring the pendency of the suit, legal heirs of piaintiff No.1 i.e., plainriff Nos.2 to 4 filed I.A.No .563 ot2O24praving the Lrial Cout.t to receive certain documents i.e., postal receipts, by which falrer of plaintiffs Aila Laxmikantham sent money orders to his rrother: Alla Devamma and postal acknowleclgment receipts o[ .A.lla Devamma, which pertains to the years 1993_94 along with atk'sted copy of Memo issued by rhe Dy.Tahsildar, \ LNA.J cRP No )l)7 o[2024 Jagtial dated 37.70.2077. In the said application, plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 contended that during the pendency of the suiL their father Alla Laxmikantham died and during his life time, he used to send money through money orders to his mother Alla Devamma for her miscellaneous expenditure and now they secured the money order receipts, acknowledgement receipts of Allla Devamma and the Memo issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Jagtiat. It is contended that those documents are very important to show that their father took care of his mother during his life time

6. The defendants filed counter and contended that trial has been commenced in the suit and P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and DW.1 was also examined and when the matter was coming up for cross-examination of DW.1, plaintiffs filed I.A.No.563 of 2024 to receive the documents belatedly. The defendants resisted the said application on the ground that the said documents are not filed along with the plaint and there was no whisper about those documents in the plaint and, therefore, the same cannot be permitted to file at this stage that too at the stage of cross- -1 1 LNA,J CRt ?'to 2127 of2024 examinatic,n of DW.1 after completion of evidence on behalf of the plairrtiffs,

7. Thr: hial Court, ttide order dated 27.06.2024 all,rwgd th. said ap:lication with an observation that documents sorLght to be filed arr: rnoney orders of the year 7993-94 and the Menro issued by the )ep,u ty Tahsildar is also of the year 2077 and, l:herefore, there is no scope for plaintiffs to create those documents to make up thetr c:ase. The trial Court further observed that.non- mentior ing of the documents sought to be produced at ,r belated stage is a culable defect with the leave of the Court and allowed the app,[ic31i6n. Aggrieved by the impugned order, present revision petition is filed.

8. Le,arnel counsel for the petitioners/ plaintiffs ccntencled that in the plaint filed by the plaintiffs, there is no pleacting that the fathr:r of the plaintiffs used to send money order s to his mother - Alla Devamma and in the absence of anv pleaciing in the plaint tte dor:uments now sought to be filed carulot be pr:rmitted to file. It is further contended that the application to receive \ documerrts rvas filed are after completior-t of evidence on [-,eha][ of \ n ) LNA.J CRP No.2l27 of2024 I I I plaintiffs and when the matter is coming up for cross- examination of DW.1 and application is filed only to fill up the lacunae, which is impermissible. lt is further contended that no rbasons are assigned as to why those documents could not be filed at the time of filing the suit and it is settled principle of law that unless sufficient cause is shown for not filing the documents' the Court normally should not permit a Pafiy to file the documents. g. In support of his contention, Iearned counsel for petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the learned single Judge of erstwhile High Court of A.P., in Union of India v' Y'S' Hi-Tech Secure Print Pvt. Ltd.,Hyderabadl; the decision of learned single |udge of High Court of A.P., at Amaravathi in Kottakota Lakkappa and others v. B.Lakkappagari Chikkaiah and others2' wherein the learned single Judge held that unless sufficient cause is shown for non-filing of the document sought to be filed by a party cannot be permitted by way of mere asking' Learned single Judge further observed that adequate reasons for justifying the 1 2 010 (6) ALD 430 023 (s) ALD s79 (AP) 2 2 6 I,NA,J cRP \to 2t27 of2021 delay c,f non-filing of the documents have to be sL own for permittrng the party to file documents

10. Pcr utntra, learned senior counsel for respr)ndents/ plaintiffs contended that it is a specific case of plain tiffs that defendant NIo.1 taking advantage of his official position District Revenue Officer, has got the properties transfe r:red and got recorded the name of his wife in the records with a mala fde intentior-r to lyab the suit schedulc properties, thereby dcpriving the right of the plaintiffs to the schedule properties anrl to that effect, thele is; clear pleading in paragraph-10 of the plain,

77. Le,arne,l senior counsel furthcr contended that once documerrts ale taken on record, the defendants can cross-examine the witnesses on the said documents and, therefore, no t,reiudice would be caused to the defer-rdants if the documents soui5ht to be filed ar,-. t,al<en on record. Learnecl senior counsel further submitted that during the pendency of the suit, plainliff No.1 expired in the year 2022 and his legal heirs n,ere brought on record a:lcl tlLe application to receive docurnents i.e., I.,n..No.563 of 2027 vtas filed by the legal heirs of the plaintiff No.1 rn,hen rhey \ 7 LNA,J cR? No 2t27 o/ 202.' came to know of the documents. It is further contended that during the life time of their fa ther i.e., plaintiff no.1, their father used to send the money to his mother, Alla Devamma, through money orders. Therefore, the hial Court has rightly allowed the application and finally, contended that no grounds are made out to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the trial Court.

72. Learned counsel for the respondents/ plaintiffs has placed reliance on the judgment of the learned single Judge of erstwhile High Court of A.P., in John Santiyago and others v. Clememt Dass and otherss, wherein the learned single Judge held as "lt is well settlec{ 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 iustice, more parbicularly when the documents sought to be filed in the opiruon of the Couit, are relevant and may have bearing on the aspects to be taken into consideration for the determination of the real controversy and the principal rssue/s involved irr the matter/suit. And what constitutes a sufficient cause always depends upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Henie, the applications need not bc rejected merely on *re grouncl of deiay/long delay, but the test shall be whetller sufficient cause is made out for the clelay. " I 2014 (3) ALT 83 (s.8.) I 8 LNA,J CRP \a 2l2i oI202a

13. Peru;erl of the record would disclose that criginaliy, plaintifl No. I filed the suit for partition and cluring the 1>endency of the sult, he expired in the year 2022 and his Iegal h,:irs were broughl. orr record and they filed I.A.No.563 of 2024 tt recelve certain documents i.e., money order receipts, acknowkrdgments and Memo issued by the Tahsildar, Jagtial, dated 31.10.2017

74. It is tnre that no reasons have been mentioned for :he delay in the appli,:ation filed by the legal heirs of piaintiff Nd.1 to receive documents, however, taking into consideration the fact that orilSinally suit was filed by the plaintiff No.1 and his legal heirs wr:re brought on record and immediately, the application to receive ,locu:nents was filed by the legal heirs. It is also relevant to refer to the observations of the trial Court that documents sought to br: filed are the money orders pertains to the yr:ars 1993 and 199,1 arrc. the Memo issued by the Deputy Tahsildar is of the yeat 20-.17 a nd, therefore, there is no scope for the pla intiffs to create thos€r documents. Further, as rightly pointecl otit by the learned senir)r counsel for plaintiffs, no prejudice rvou lc1 be caused to the defendants and the defendanis can cross-examine 9 I,NA,J CRP No 2t27 of2024 the witnesses and also can challenge the documents as to the aspect of relevancy.

15. In a recent judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Levaku Pedda Reddamma and others v. Gotfumukkala Venkata Subbamma and anothera, the Hon,ble Apex Court held as under: \ \ "We find that the trial Court as well as the High Court have gravely erred in law in not permithng the defendants to produce documcnts, thc relcvance of which can be examined by the triat Court on the basis of the evidence to be led, but to deprive a par$z to the suit not to file documents even if there is some delay will lead to clenial of justice. It is wcll settled that rules of procedure are hand_maid of justice and, therefore, even if there is some delay, the trial Court should have imposed some costs rather thal to decline the producbion of the documents itsclf.,,

76. Therefore, taking into consicleraiion, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case i.e., after thddeath of plaintiff No.1, application is being filed by his legal heirs and the Iegal position, this Court is of the considered view that impugned order passed by the trial Court does not require interference by this Court and the revision petition is deserved to be dismissed. 4 2022 Livetaw (SC) 533 t I I t l0 t.NA,J CRP t\o )127 of 2021 Accordingly Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Therr: shall be no order iis tc costs Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, sh,ill stand closed 1 To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSIST4XT REGTSTRAR : sdcrLoru oFFrcER

1. The Principat District Judge a[Jagtial. 2 One CC to Sri S Surender RSOO/, nOvocate [OpUC] - 3. One CC to Sri. Narendar Jaili, Advocate tOpdCt 4. Two CD Copies. A1 HIGH COURT DATED:3010112025 ORDER CRP.No.2127 of 2024 ir'. ff;l^\. k e c o 2 E rEB 2025 ?l ,i. i ji-i '.-.--?' DISMISSTNG 'IHE CIVIL REVISION PETITION GJ *r'- w- --zaY\'r