##PAGE1##

2026:APHC:29630

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2328 OF 2025

ORDER:

1. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala in I.A.No.251 of 2025 in O.S.No.130 of 201 dated

28.07.2024.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, I.A.No.251 of 2025 was filed by the petitioners/defendants before the Court below under Order VIII Rule 14(3) and Section 151 C.P.C, seeking permission to mark the certified copy of the FIR and CD containing photographs as

evidence in O.S.No.130 of 2021.

3. It was contended by the petitioners/defendants before the Court below that the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit against them seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their henchmen not to make any constructions in front of the plaintiff’s house on northern side at Point Nos.G to H of the plan attached to the plaint. It is contended that, husband of the second petitioner viz late Surya Narayana Reddy filed written statement and actively

2 NV,J

2026:APHC:29630 CRP_2328_2025

contested the suit. During course of trial, he passed away leaving behind the second petitioner, his daughter and third defendant as his legal heirs. Taking undue advantage of the death of her husband, the plaintiff illegally got constructed a compound wall by encroaching upon the northern pathway used by the petitioners for their ingress and egress. Consequently, the second petitioner herein filed I.A.No.149 of 2024 seeking removal of the said illegal construction. Along with the said petition, she inadvertently filed a photocopy of the FIR instead of certified copy and submitted photographs without enclosing the corresponding CD. Then the petitioners/respondents sought to file certified copy of the FIR and CD containing the photographs before the Court below contending that the earlier

omission was neither willful nor intentional, but only mistake.

4. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter affidavit denying material allegations, while submitting the petition and documents, the petitioners miserably failed to file the negatives of the photographs and did not supply a copy of the CD to the respondent/plaintiff. Whereas, even at the time of submitting documents by the petitioner, there is a final report of the Station House Officer, Vettapalem, wherein the subject F.I.R was referred as false, thereby the

3 NV,J

2026:APHC:29630 CRP_2328_2025

competent authority rendered the FIR as devoid of any evidentiary value, as such, it cannot be marked as document prayed to dismiss

the petition.

5. Upon considering submissions of both the counsel, the Trial Court framed point for determination of issue as to “whether the petitioner/Defendant Nos.2 & 3 are entitled to seek permission to mark the certified copy of the FIR and the CD containing photographs at this stage of the proceedings in suit under Order VIII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 C.P.C”. The court below rightly opined that the petitioners did not show any sufficient reason to allow the belated filing and marking of the FIR and CD, moreover they failed to file the documents at appropriate stage and also did not provide a copy of the CD to the respondent/plaintiff, causing procedural lapses which were not corrected despite ample opportunity. The Court below further observed that the defence of the petitioners can be fully advanced based on the existing pleadings and permitted and marked evidence without relying on subsequent developments such as FIR and CD, more so, in the meanwhile, the necessary legal and evidentiary requirements have not been met and in the light of FIR lacking any probative value, since it is refrred as false. Therefore, the

4 NV,J

2026:APHC:29630 CRP_2328_2025

petitioner did not file any valid reason, documents or assigned any reason to allow marking of the documents and Court below rightly dismissed I.A.No.251 of 2025. Ch