The High Court · 2025

...RespondenUPlaintiff lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the clrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitron, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all proceedings the order passed by the lll Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri Distnct at Kukatpally in OS.No.97 ot 2017 dated 12.O8.2025 till the disposal of C R P. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI POCHAIAH DORISHETTI Counsel for the Respondent: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER /, ,/ HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CTVIL RE\/ISION PETITION No.4029 OF 2025 ORAL ORDER: Heard Mr. D. Pochaiah, leamed counsel lor the petitioner'

2. This Civil Revision Petition is fited assailing the order dated

12.08.2025 in LA. No.298 of 2025 in O.S. No.97 ot 2017 passed by leamed III Additional District Judge, Medchat - Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally.

3. The petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S. No'97 of 2017, while the respondent is the plainti 11. The respondent had filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioncr herein seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.34,59,600/- along with interest When the suit is posted for <lefendant's evidence, he has flled an application vide l.A- No'298 of 2025 under Order - VIII, Rule - i read with l5l ol'CPC, to receive the documents as mentioned therein. contending that he deposed in the suit as DW.l and marked the docutnents as exhibits' At the time of his evidence, some ctucial documents were not marked which are very much essential to prove his innocerrce. Therefore, it is just and necessary to receive the said docurnents u2., i) receipt executed by the respondent herein on Rs.50/- non-jr"rdicial stamp paper dated 2

22.09.2019, wherein the rs5p6ndgnt herein clearly admitted that he had received Rs.26,40,000/_ plus advance of lease agreement of Rs.1,50,000/_ totaling of Rs.27,90,000/_ as exhibit in continuarion of cmr".ffzij"r:ozs previous exhibits. I I / I 1 I I I proceedings.

4. The said application was opposed by the respondent _ plaintiff contending that the petitioner herein fired the said application with all false and baseless allegations and in order to drag on the It is also fi.rrther contended by him that the petitioner herein has crea ted the said docurnents and forged his signature He cient reasons in the affidavit to receive the said ing of the said documenB along with written has not mentioned suffi documenh, and non_fiI statement.

5. Vide order dated 12.0g.20 25, the trial Court dismissed the said apprication hording that the peritioner herein faired to mention sufficient reasons for not firing the said documents along with written statement' He has not mentioned even a singre reason to substantiate, sufficient reasons for non_filing of the said documents.

6. Challenging the said order, the peritioner filed the present revrsion. J KI,.J CRP No 4029 of2025

7. As discussed above, the respondent filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of money. The petitioner herein has filed written statement on 03.09.2019, wherein in paragraph No.6 he has stated that the contents of paragraph No.3 of the plaint are tme to some extent and alter cornpletion of registration, the defendant had paid amount in cash to the plaintiff which was not mentioned in the suit and further the plaintiff had issued receipts for the amounts received by him and the other f'acts are bome by record. Only to harass the defendant, the plaintiff by taking advantage of documents which are with him filed several cases against him. He has paid the an'rount to the plaintiff in cash and the ptaintiff had not retumed the documents to him.

8. Referring to the said paragraph. leamed counsel lor the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has specifically mentioned that he has paid the money and the plaintifl' has issued receipts. With the said contentions, he has filed the aforesaid I.A. to receive the aforesaid two documents. Even then, the trial Court dismissed the said a ppl ication vide impugned order

9. As discussed above, the petitioner herein has fited the aforesaid I.A. No.298 of 2025 in O.S. No.97 of 2017 under Order - \ 4 KLJ CR? No.4029 ot2025 VIII, Rule - 3 of CPC, to receive the aforesaid documents. Therefore, he has to lay foundation for fiting the said application to receive the said documents. He has to specifically assert and plead in his written statement that he has paid entire amount including MOU dated

28.09.2017, lease agreement dated 29.11.2014 and full and final settlement receipt dated 22.09.2018. [n fact, the petitioner hled the aforesaid lease agreement dated 29.11.2014, MOU dated 28.09.2017 and full and final settlement receipt dated 22.09.2018 along with present revision. But, in thc alfidavit filed in support ofthe aforesaid IA he has mentioned with regard to receipt executed by the respondent on Rs.50/- non-judicial stamp paper dated 22.09.2018 and lease agreement for Rs. 1,50,000/-, there is no mention about the date of lease agreement and there is no mention about full and final settlement receipt dated 22.09.2018. There is no explanation from the petitioner, much less plausibte explanation for delay in filing the aforesaid application to receive the documents. There is also no explanation from the petitioner as to why he has not filed the said documents along with written statement and non-mentioning of all the details of said documents in the written statement 5 KI-,J CRP No 4029 of2025 ,l0. It is settled principle of law that the defendant can file docunrents which are not filed along with written statement, but he has to lay loundation by mentioning sufficient reasons for non-filing ol such documents along with written statement and delay in filing such documents to receive. In the present case, the petitioner has not laid \ the foundation. I l. As discussed above, at the cost of repetition, though he has filed lull and llnal settlement receipt dated 22.09-2018, he has not mentioned thc said fact in the affidavit. He has not mentioned the date ol lease agreernent in the said affidavit. Thus, the petitioner failed to la-v fbundation in filing such application under Order - VIII' Rute - l of CPC to receive such documents. There is no explanation offered by the petitioner, much less plausible explanation in filing such application after six (06) years of the filing ol'written statement- On consideration of the said aspects only, the trial Court dismissed the said application vide impugned order. It is a reasoned order. The petitioncr faited to make out any case to interfere with the impugned order. J'hereflore, the present revision is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6 KLJ CRP No.4O29 of 2025

12. This Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the revision shall stand closed. / To, //TRUE COPY// i SD/. U.SUDHA SISTANTREGIST SECTION OFFICER

1. The lll Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally 2. One CC to SRI POCHAIAH DORISHETTI, Advocate [OPUCI 3. Two CD Copies N, NVB/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1411112025 ORDER CRP.No.4029 of 2025 ) C '.) T * Lt ,.,]r 2 3 l.,18 2026 :,'ii s F]AT(::r DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION E [,1 ( ? L I tt