Smt.Guvvala Prameelamma v. Sri.P.Mallesh
13444!
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENry SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3516 OF 2025 Petition under Arlicle 227 of the constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order dated 2310712025 Passed in l.A.No 42 of 2023 in O.S 282 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the ll Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur. Between:
Smt.Guwala Prameelamma, Wo Parvathalu, Age-50 years, Occ-Agriculture R/o.Dedinenipally Village, Peddakothapally Mandal, Nagar Kurnool District
...Petitioner/Defendant
AND Sri.P.Mallesh, S/o. Narayana, Age- 29 years, Occ-Agriculture, R/o. Dedinenipally Village, Peddakothapally Mandal, Nagar Kurnool District. ... RespondenUPlaintiff lA NO: 'l OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay further proceedings in l.A.No.42 of 2023 in O.S.No.282 of 2019 dated 23-072025 on the file of ll Addl Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur till the disposal of the Revrsion petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl JAGAN MOHAN REDDY KOTHA Counsel for the Respondent : _ _ _ The Cou( made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3516 ot 2025 ORDER:
1.
Aggrieved by the orders passed by the leamed ll Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur in l.A.No.42 ot 2023 in O.S.No.282 of 2019, dated 23.07.2025, in allowing the petition filed to receive the documents, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2.
Heard Sri K.Jaganmohan Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
3.
Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that l.A.No.42 of 2023 is filed under wrong provision of law. The I petitioner before the Trial Court is the plaintiff and he ought to have filed a petition under Order 7 Rule 14 of C.P.C. But instead, he has filed under Order B Rule 14 (3) of C.PC. and contended that the documents filed are not genuine inspite of which, the learned Trial Court has allowed the petition to receive the said documents. Learned counsel further contended that the documents which are not genuine if marked, may prejudice his rights and therefore prayed to set-aside the order passed by the Trial Court. 4.
Perused the record. The Suit is of the year 2019 and PW1 is already examined and at that juncture, the present petition is filed to -/ -.-rl
- \l \ receive the documents, which are the original simple Sale Deed and certified copies of Pahanies. Though the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petition is filed under wrong provision of law, it cannot be considered as a ground to reject an application and it does not disentitle the petitioner to gain any relief However, as far as genuineness of the decuments is concerned, that can be looked into during the course of trial. The documents would be received subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility. lt is also observed by the Trial Court that it is a original simple Sale Deed that is proposed to be filed along with the certified copies of Pahanies. lt is also observed by the Trial Court that the relevancy and genuineness of the documents would be decided during the course of trial. Hence, this Court finds no infirmity in the orders passed by the Trial Court and there is no need to interfere with the said orders. 5.
Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed 6.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
SD/. K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '1. The ll Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur.
2. One CC to SRI JAGAN MOHAN REDDY KOTHA, Advocate [OPUC]
3. Two CD Copies *) ADK/PSL t
HIGH COURT DATED:2610912025 x S Qs 1 t [[t ?fi)fr o C)
ORDER
l t CRP.No.3516 ot 2025 DISMISSING THE CRP v/ w ,l