Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/2572/2025 of SYAM SUNDAR MAHESWARI @ SHYAM SUNDER MAHESWARI Vs VARSHIT AQUA WET on 22 January 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION Between: 1. SYAM SUNDAR MAHESWARI @ SHYAM SUNDER MAHESWARI, A S/O. LATE RATANALAL MAHESWARI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. DIRECTOR, SUBHAM MAHESWARI LIMITED, PENUMULI
APHC010518112025
IN TH
FRIDAY, TH
TWO
THE HONOURABLE SR
CIVIL R
Between:
1. SYAM SUNDAR M
S/O. LATE RATAN
DIRECTOR, SUBH
LIMITED, PENUMU
MANDAL, GUNTUR
1. VARSHIT AQUA W
S/o. Basavaiah age
District.
Petition under Articl
circumstances stated in
pleased to The above na
Civil Revision Petition, h
09.09.2025 passed in I.A
the PrI. Civil Judge (Seni
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Secti
in the affidavit filed in sup
grant stay of all further p
E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
HE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUAR
O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND
REVISION PETITION NO: 2572/2025
AHESWARI @ SHYAM SUNDER M
NALAL MAHESWARI, AGED ABOU
HAM MAHESWARI COLD STORA
ULI ROAD, RAIL PETA, DUGGIRALA
R DISTRICT.
AND
WET, Gudivada, rep by its Prop. Sri
ed 50 years, OccBusiness, R/o. Gud
...R
le 227 of the Constitution of India, pra the grounds filed herein, the High amed petitioners beg to present this M
having been aggrieved by the order
A.No.362 of 2025 in O.S.No.311 of 20
or Division) at Gudivada following amo
on 151 CPC praying that in the circum
pport of the petition, the High Court ma proceedings in O.S.No.311 of 2015 o DESH
RY
DRANATH ROY
MAHESWARI, A
UT 68 YEARS.
AGE PRIVATE
VILLAGE AND
...PETITIONER
i Atiuri Sridhar,
ivada, Krishna
RESPONDENT
aying that in the
Court may be
Memorandum of
and decree dt.
015 on the file of
ong other
mstances stated
ay be pleased to
on the file of the
CMR,J
C.R.P.No.2572 of 2025
PrI. Civil Judge (senior division) at Gudivada, pending disposal of the C.R.P., in the interest of justice and to pas Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.J JANAKIRAMI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent:
1.G VIJAYA BABU
CMR,J
C.R.P.No.2572 of 2025
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Assailing the order dated 09.09.2025 passed in I.A.No.362 of 2025 in O.S.No.311 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gudivada, whereby, the petition under Order VII Rule 14(3) of Code of Civil Procedure, to receive the documents after condoning the delay, was allowed, the instant civil revision petition is preferred by the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. J.Janaki Rami Reddy learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.Vijaya Babu, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The parties will be referred as they are arrayed in the plaint.
4. The revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The suit was filed against him by the plaintiff for recovery of money on the basis of the katha said to have been maintained by the plaintiff. The defendant denied the suit claim. The trial of the suit commenced and when the suit is at the stage of arguments, the plaintiff has filed the present application to receive the document in question, namely, the message sent by the plaintiff to the defendant over cell phone relating to payment of the balance money. The trial Court allowed the said petition and permitted to receive the document in question, as a piece of evidence in favour of the plaintiff.
5. According to the plaintiff, since the defendant denied the suit claim and as there is no other evidence available at present, the said message exchanged between the plaintiff and the defendant relating to payment of balance money is the only proof available to substantiate the claim of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the defendant would vehemently contend that the said message is not admissible in evidence as it is not accompanied by the certificate required under Section 65 B of Evidence Act, 1872 and also on the ground that the message cannot be preserved for more than a period of two years, as per the telecommunication guidelines. It is a matter relating to
CMR,J C.R.P.No.2572 of 2025
appreciation of evidence relating to the said text message. When the trial Court found that it is a relevant piece of evidence, which is required for the purpose of deciding the controversy in the suit, it cannot be said that the trial Court erred in allowing the petition. At that stage, it is not required to appreciate the evidence on record. The question of appreciating the evidence that is adduced arises in the final adjudication of the suit. Therefore, it is always open to the defendant to question the validity of the said evidence on the aforesaid two grounds in the final adjudication of the suit.
6. Therefore, this Court finds no legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned order of the trial Court and it is not liable to be set-aside.
7. Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The order of the trial Court is confirmed. However, it is left open to the defendant to raise his objection relating to the admissibility of the said evidence and proof of the same at the time of marking the said document and also in the final adjudication of the suit. Ultimately, it is for the trial Court to adjudicate on the basis of the contentions raised by the defendant. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date: 23.01.2026 MDP