Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/3169/2025 of BOLLA VEERA VENKATA NARAYANA Vs NEKKANTI ANANTHA LAKSHMI on 18 December 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3163] FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3169/2025 Between: 1. BOLLA VEERA VENKATA
APHC010614802025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3169/2025
Between:
1. BOLLA VEERA VENKATA NARAYANA, S/O CHINA BRAHMANUDU, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O. D. NO.4-162, TATIPAKA VILLAGE, RAZOLE
MANDAL,
DR.
B.R.
AMBEDKAR
KONASEEMA
DISTRICT,
ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
AND
1. NEKKANTI ANANTHA LAKSHMI, W/o Venkateswara Rao, aged 50
years, R/o. Bhairavapatnam Village, Mandavalli Mandal, Krishna District.
...RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toBeing aggrieved by the Docket Order dt. 28.08.2025 passed in I.A.
No. 661 of 2025 in O.S. No.147 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Learned Junior Civil Judge, Kaikaluru, the above named petitioner prefers this memorandum of Civil Revision Petition for the following among other IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 147 of 2020 on the
file of the Court of Learned Junior Civil Judge, Kaikaluru, pending disposal of the main CRP and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to vacate the Interim stay, which is granted in I.A.No. 1/2025
in C.R.P. No. 3169/2025 dated 21.11.2025 by this Hon’ble Court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. T V V KOTESWARA RAO
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:
Challenging the order dated 28.08.2025 in I.A.No.661 of 2025 in O.S.No.147 of 2020 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Kaikaluru, whereby the petition filed under Order VIII, Rule 1(a)(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) to receive the documents in question was dismissed, the present civil revision petition is filed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The suit was filed against him for recovery of money on the foot of a promissory note. The defendant has taken a plea of forgery. The suit promissory note was signed in Telugu language by the defendant as it appears from it. The defendant has taken a plea that he is in the habit of singing only in English language and not in Telugu language. Therefore, he sought to produce a registered settlement deed which was executed by him and signed by him in English language. The trial Court dismissed the said petition and refused to receive the said document in evidence.
4. Upon considering the impugned order passed by the trial Court, this Court finds no legal flaw or infirmity in the order. When the suit is filed for recovery of money on the foot of a promissory note and when the defendant has taken a plea that he is only in the habit of signing in English language and not in Telugu language, the said settlement deed is not relevant for the purpose of deciding the said controversy. Therefore, this Court finds no valid ground to interfere in the present revision petition to set aside the impugned order.
5. Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J. Date: 19.12.2025 ARR
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3169/2025
Date: 19.12.2025
ARR