The court upheld the trial Court's discretion in denying the admission of additional documents, emphasizing the necessity of relevance and proper justification for their late introduction.

COMMON ORDER:

B.S.Bhanumathi, J.

All these revisions are filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders, dated 02.01.2025, dismissing I.A.Nos.661 of 2024, 660 of 2024, 659 of 2024 and 722 of 2024 respectively in O.S.No.73 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

2. C.R.P.No.464 of 2025 is filed against the order, dated 02.01.2025, dismissing I.A.No.661 of 2024; C.R.P.No.465 of 2025 is filed against the order, dated 02.01.2025, dismissing I.A.No.660 of 2024; C.R.P.No.466 of 2025 is filed against the order, dated 02.01.2025, dismissing I.A.No.659 of 2024; and C.R.P.No.467 of 2025 is filed against the order, dated 02.01.2025, dismissing I.A.No.722 of 2024

3. The plaintiff filed these applications for the following reliefs:

(i) I.A.No.661 of 2024 under Order VII rule 14 and Section 151 CPC to receive the schedule documents on behalf of the plaintiff;

(ii) I.A.No.660 of 2024 under Order XVIII rule 17 and Section 151 CPC to recall PW1 / plaintiff for marking of documents on his behalf;

(iii) I.A.No.659 of 2024 under Section 151 CPC to reopen the plaintiff’s evidence for summoning the witness and mark additional documents on his behalf; and

(iv) I.A.No.722 of 2024 under Order XVI rule 1 and 5 CPC and Section 151 CPC to summon the petition schedule witness to give evidence in the above case on behalf of the plaintiff

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. The case of the revision petitioner/plaintiff in support of his case, briefly stated, is as follows:

a. The plaintiff and the defendants are family friends. The 1^st defendant is the son and the 2^nd defendant is his mother. Both the defendants jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.26,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 01.07.2016 at Kurnool for family necessities and executed a self scribed pronote in favour of the plaintiff on the same day promising to repay the pronote amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. As the defendants failed to pay the amount borrowed, the present suit in O.S.No.73 of 2019 was filed.

b. The 1^st defendant as DW1 deposed that the sister of the plaintiff, Sai Sree and the 1^st defendant are classmates at G. Pulla Reddy Engineering College, Kurnool, and that he frequently used to go to the plaintiff’s house. However, he denied borrowal of the amount of Rs.26,00,000/- from the plaintiff and execution of promissory note. According to the plaintiff, the 1^st defendant had borrowed the amount of Rs.26,00,000/- and executed a promissory note and also an undertaking agreement on Rs.100/- worth non-judicial stamp paper on 06.07.2017. Therefore, I.A.No.661 of 2024 was filed to receive and mark the additional schedule documents.

c. The schedule of documents sought to be received is as under:

1. Original Indian Non Judicial Rs.100/- stamp paper executed on 06.07.2017 between Golla Karthik Yadav(D1) and Sai Sree(sister of plaintiff);

2. Certified copies of sale deed document No.4009/2009, dated 19.08.2009, document No.4010/2009, dated 19.08.2009 purchased by defendant No.2;

3. Original police complaint before Gachibowli Police Station, Hyderabad, given by Sai Sree (sister of plaintiff)

d. The defendants 1 & 2 filed separate counters denying the petition averments and contending as follows:

The petition is not maintainable and it is intended to fill up the lacunae and to drag on the matter. If the alleged documents are already in the custody of the plaintiff, he ought to have filed the same and non-filing of the same in evidence earlier shows that the alleged documents were created for the purpose of the suit. Even otherwise, the alleged documents have no nexus to the suit. There are no bona fides in filing the petition. The petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. The trial Court, after hearing both parties, dismissed the petition in I.A.No.661 of 2024 observing that the petition schedule documents have no relevancy to the suit claim. Since I.A.No.661 of 2024 to receive the schedule documents is d