ORDER:

Heard Sri Chalasani Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Ravi Kumar.C, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, apart from perusing the material available on record.

02. Defendants 1 and 3 in O.S. No.201 of 2015 on the file of the Court of VII Additional District Judge-cum-IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, are the petitioners in the present revision, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the present revision, challenge is to the order, dated 03.05.2023, passed by the said Court in I.A. No.266 of 2023 in O.S. No.201 of 2015.

03. Respondent No. 1 herein instituted the aforementioned suit for recovery of amount on the foot of a promissory note. In the said suit, the defendants/ petitioners herein filed a written statement in the month of September, 2015. On 24.01.2023, the present I.A. No.266 of 2023 came to be filed by the petitioners herein under the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short „CPC‟) to receive the documents filed along with the petition. The following are the documents sought to be filed by the petitioners herein.

1. Original medical record of the deceased Vemulapalli Vedamani Yesu Ratnam.

2. Copy of Provisional Certificate dated

30.05.1994 of the 2nd defendant Vemulapalli Sudarsini Devi.

3. Copy of Certificate of Bachelor of Computer Applications dated 20.08.2002 of the 3rd defendant Vemulapalli Sudha Devi.

4. Copy of Certificate of Masters of Computer Applications dated 15.03.2005 of the 3rd defendant Vemulapalli Sudha Devi.

5. Copy of Certificate of Bachelor of Pharmacy dated 14.08.2003 of the 4th defendant Vemulapalli Santhi Sri.

6. Copy of Certificate of Bachelor of Masters of Pharmacy dated March 2008 of the 4th defendant Vemulapalli Santhi.

7. Original house warming card dated

05.11.1998 belonging to the defendant‟s family.

8. Original wedding card of the 2nd defendant. 9. Original wedding card of the 4th defendant.

10. Served copy of plaint in O.S. No.172/2021 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Vijayawada.

04. Resisting the said application, the 1st respondent herein filed a counter.

05. The learned Additional District Judge passed an order on 03.05.2023, dismissing the said I.A. No.266 of 2023. Hence, the present revision under Article 227 of the constitution of India. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge is highly erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the very spirit and object of Rule 1-A(3) of Order VIII of CPC. In elaboration, it is further contended by the learned counsel that the learned Additional District Judge ought to have allowed the application. In support of his submissions and contentions, he places reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sugandhi (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. V. P.Rajkumar1 and in the case of Levaku Pedda Reddamma and Ors., v.

Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma and Ors.2

06. On the contrary, emphatically resisting the revision, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that

1 AIR 2020 SC 5486

2 Manu/SC/0915/2022

that there is absolutely no error nor there exists any infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court and, in the absence of the same, the impugned order is not amenable for any correction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that, in the absence of any pleading in the written statement by the petitioners herein, the petitioners cannot press the proposed documents into service. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff relies on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Biraji alias Brijraji and another v. Surya Pratap and Others3.

07. In the light of the above background, the issue that emerges for consideration of this Court is: “whether the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, which is impugned in the