THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3546 of 2023

ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order in I.A.No.192 of 2023 in O.S.No.21 of 2018 dated 18.10.2023 passed by learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool.

2. Petitioner is the respondent and the respondent is the petitioner in I.A.192 of 2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent submits that the Court below allowed I.A.No.192 of 2023 filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) r/w Section 151 of CPC by receiving the documents without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the trial Court failed to see that the documents are subsequent to institution of the suit and therefore, no purpose would be served. The documents are not relevant for proper adjudication of the dispute in O.S.No.21 of 2018 and there is no pleading in the plaint with that effect with regard to the documents filed along with the application and prayed to set aside the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner submits that the learned trial court has given justifiable reasons in allowing the application, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the CRP.

5. O.S.No.21 of 2018 is filed by the respondent/ plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of contract in respect of agreement of sale dated 11.07.2014 and understanding dated 10.09.2015 in respect of the plaint schedule property seeking a direction to her to receive the balance sale consideration and execute a registered sale deed in respect of plaint schedule property.

6. Respondent has filed I.A.No.192 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 14(3) r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking leave of the Court to file the documents. Petitioner herein, who is the respondent in I.A.No.192 of 2023 has contested the matter and the learned trial court has vide allowed the above said application order dated 18.10.2023 observing that “Whether the said documents are useful for the purpose of disposal of the case or not and whether they are created for the purpose of this suit or not can only be decided after full-fledged trial and they were received subject to proof and relevancy.

7. Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner (See: K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan – 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985).

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Karaka China Ramayamma Vs. State Government of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2004 (2) ALD 139. It is a Second Appeal filed by the plaintiffs before the High Court, where under appeal filed by the defendant was allowed by set-a- siding the Judgment passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.262 of 1978. More over, it is dealt under A.P. Land Encroachment Act. The decision cited is not applicable to the case on hand in view of the fact that the present C.R.P. is filed against the order in allowing ‘receive document petition’, filed by the respondent.

9. Learned trial court has appreciated the facts in proper perspective and rightly allowed the application filed by the respondent by assigning cogent reasons and also with subject to proof and relevancy.

10. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the learned trial court is in proper perspective and no interference is called for and the CRP is liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Interim orders shall stand vacated and miscellaneous, if any, pending in the Civil Revision Petition