HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4029 OF 2025

2 9

ORAL ORDER

Heard Mr. D. Pochaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner.

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

12.08.2025 in I.A. No.298 of 2025 in O.S. No.97 of 2017 passed by learned III Additional District Judge, Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally.

3. The petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S. No.97 of 2017, while the respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent had filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioner herein seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.34,59,600/- along with interest. When the suit is posted for defendant’s evidence, he has filed an application vide I.A. No.298 of 2025 under Order - VIII, Rule - 3 read with 151 of CPC, to receive the documents as mentioned therein, contending that he deposed in the suit as DW.1 and marked the documents as exhibits. At the time of his evidence, some crucial documents were not marked which are very much essential to prove his innocence. Therefore, it is just and necessary to receive the said documents viz., i) receipt executed by the respondent herein on Rs.50/- non-judicial stamp paper dated

22.09.2018, wherein the respondent 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 continuation of previous exhibits.

4. The said application was opposed by the respondent -

plaintiff contending that the petitioner herein filed the said application with all false and baseless allegations and in order to drag on the proceedings. It is also further contended by him that the petitioner herein has created the said documents and forged his signature. He has not mentioned sufficient reasons in the affidavit to receive the said documents, and non-filing of the said documents along with written statement.

5. Vide order dated 12.08.2025, the trial Court dismissed the said application holding that the petitioner herein failed to mention sufficient reasons for not filing the said documents along with written statement. He has not mentioned even a single reason to substantiate sufficient reasons for non-filing of the said documents.

6. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present revision.

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 true to some extent and after completion 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 facts are borne 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 amount to the plaintiff in cash and the plaintiff had not returned the documents to him.

8. Referring to the said paragraph, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has specifically mentioned that he has paid the money and the plaintiff 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 application vide impugned order.

9. As discussed above, the petitioner herein has filed the aforesaid I.A. No.298 of 2025 in O.S. No.97 of 2017 under Order -

VIII, Rule - 3 of CPC, to receive the aforesaid documents. Therefore, he has to lay foundation for filing 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. In fact, the petitioner filed the aforesaid lease agreement dated 29.11.2014, MOU dated 28.09.2017 an