The High Court · 2025

7. Smt.Varalaxmi, Wo.Raghavendar, D/o. Chinnaiah Goud, Age.Major,House Wife, Rio.Bhoothpur Village and Mandal, Nagar Kurnool District. AND Smt. Pabba Arunamma, Wo.Manyam Goud,Age. 45 years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o. Yettam Village, Kodair Mandal, Nagar Kurnool District. a .RespondenUPlaintiff ... Petitioners/Defenda nts lA 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 further proceedings in 1.A.No.358/24 in O.S.No.'175 of 2016, on the file of 1st Additional Junior Civil Judges Court at Kollapur till the disposal of the revision petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI JAGAN MOHAN REDDY KOTHA Counsel for the Respondent: Ms NANDINI UPADYA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T]RUMALA DEVI :ADA CIVIL REVI SION PETITI ON No.2456 ot 2Oi,ll; ORDER This Civil Revision petition is filed seekin 3 to set aside the order dated 28.01 20ZS passed in l.A.Nc.35g of 2024 in O.S.No.175 of 2016 on the file of I Additiona Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur

2. Heard Mr.Jagan Mohan Reddy Kotha, earned counsel for the petitioners and tvls.Nandini Upadya, earned counsel for the respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits t rat the trial court has allowed the application under Order v ll Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civit procedure, 1908 (fr> 'CPC'), and aggrieved by the same, .the preser Revision Petition has been filed. lt is contended :l simple sale deed sought to be introduced is inadmis;r evidence and cannot be received, as there t Civil at the ible in is no endorsement by the revenue authorities on tf ( document. He further submitted that the examinir on of PW.1 has already been completed, and that the doc J ment 2 ETD. J cP.P 2456 2025 is being introduced at this stage merely to fill the lacuna in the respondent's case. Therefore, the said document ought not to be received or marked in evidence.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that, since it is a simple sale deed of '1995, if it is allowed to be admitted, the respondent may, at a later stage, seek to invoke the presumption under Section 90 of the lndian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'the Act') claiming that the document is over 30 years old and must therefore be presumed to be genuine. ln such an event, the petitioners would be prejudiced and may lose their case. Hence, he prayed to set aside the said order.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the trial court has rightly allowed the petition, and that the admissibility and validity of the documents are matters to be tested during the course of the trial, but they cannot be rejected at the threshold' Therefore, she prayed that the orders of the trial court be upheld' 3 ETD, J 156 2025 cRP '

6. Since the present petition has been filed chal :nging the order passed under Order Vll Rule 14(3) of the ( ode of Civil Procedure, the said provision is extracted bt> cw for reference. "Order VII of CPC: Relief to be specifically stated- Every plaint shall :,1 rte specifically the relief which the plaintiff claims e t rer simply or in the alternative, and it shall not be necessary to ask for general or .other relief which r ay always be given as the Court may think just to he same extent as if it had been asked for. And the sir ne rule shall apply to any relief claimed by the defenrl rnt in his written statement Rule 14 of CPC: Production of document on whic r plaintiff sues or relies: (1) xxx (2) xxx (3) A document which ought to be produced in Co.r t by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to I ) entered in the list to be added or annexed to t1 ) plaint but is not produced or entered accordingh, shall not, without the leave of the Court, te receii,i i in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit., 7 Thus, the above rule under Order Vll Rule .14(lI of the Code of Clvil Procedure facilitates the product on of documents which were not produced along with the plaint, only with the leave of the Court 4 \ ETD, J cw 2456 202s

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied upon the Judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Mohanraj Rupachand Jain alias Chhajed v. Kewalchand Hastmal Jain and othersl , wherein it was held that the said provision is essentially intended to assist both the parties as well as the Court in the. matter of production of the plaintiffs documentary evidence while adjudicating the dispute before the Court. Accordingly, the provision must be construed liberally, and no pedantic approach should be adopted in its enforcement. Documentary evidence that is not disputed as relevant and material for a just and appropriate decision cannot be disregarded merely because the respondent failed to include it in the list annexed to the plaint, unless it is demonstrated by the petitioners that allowing such documents would cause real prejudice.

9. ln the present case, the apprehension of the petitioners is that if the simple sale deed is marked as evidence, since it is a 30 year old document, the Court may 1 2oo7 AIHC 1015 5 ETD, J cRI' 2 56 2025 presume its genuineness, which could prejud ( e the petitioners' rights. However, the Court must o :ercise caution and may admit the document subject kr proof, relevancy, and admissibility. The trial court has me Je the same observation while admitting the document. The refore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. lt is re'i erated that the documents in question can be received sL I lect to proof, relevancy, and admissibility. '10. Accordingly, the orders of the trial court are rpheld, and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions per iing, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-A.H. ASS -\", ;.GOWRI SHANKAR i] STANT REGISTRAR \.',l ' SEGTIoN oFFICER a To,

1. The 1st Additional Junior Civil Judges Court at Kollapr r. 2. One CC to Sri Jagan Mohan Reddy Kotha, Advocate [C t UC j 3. One CC to Ms Nandini Upadya, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies NVB/PSL le HIGH COURT DATED:2410912025 ORDER CRP.No.2456 of 2025 I {E SI,{ C- <) ( JAN 2O2T z.v .J{ -k '\-1 DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETI..ION a 6 \6 r\ab