V. Sanjeeva Rao vs P. Prabhakar Reddy
2026 Latest Caselaw 614 Tel

Telangana High Court

V. Sanjeeva Rao vs P. Prabhakar Reddy on 10 April, 2026

      IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
                         HYDERABAD

         THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

              CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1101 OF 2026

                               DATE: 10.04.2026

 BETWEEN:

 V. Sanjeeva Rao
                                                                      ...Petitioner
                                        AND

P. Prabhakar Reddy
                                                                    ...Respondent


 Mr. Vinod Kumar Kethepally, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.


 ORDER:

1. The Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order dated

16.03.2026 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally dismissing the petitioner's

application (I.A.No.553 of 2025 in O.S.No.37 of 2025) filed for

receiving the list of 36 documents under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) read

with section 151 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC").

2. The Trial Court dismissed the petitioner's I.A. on the ground

that the petitioner had not assigned sufficient reasons for not filing

the said documents along with the pleadings.

3. The petitioner is the defendant in a Suit filed by the respondent

for recovery of money amounting to Rs.25,43,250/- along with future

interest.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made his

submissions.

5. Upon perusal of the Affidavit of the petitioner/defendant, it is

evident that the only reason assigned for bringing these 36 documents

is that they "...are very much necessary for the proper adjudication of

the case and to prove my innocence...". No other reasons have been

stated in the said Affidavit.

6. Admittedly, the Suit for recovery of money was filed in 2013 (old

O.S.No.96 of 2013) and the defendant filed the application to bring the

36 additional documents on record after 12 years, in 2025. Hence,

the Trial Court correctly dismissed the application, holding that the

defendant failed to mention a single reason in the affidavit,

substantiating sufficient reasons for non-filing of the documents along

with the plaint.

7. Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the CPC makes it clear that a document

which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this

Rule, but, is not be so produced as per Order VIII Rule 1A(1), the

defendant shall not, without the leave of the court, be received in

evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the Suit.

8. Considering the complete absence of reasons in the Affidavit,

this Court does not find any error in the impugned order dated

16.03.2026.

9. CRP No.1101 of 2026, along with all connected applications, is

accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J

DATE: 10.04.2026 NDS

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1101 OF 2026

DATE: 10.04.2026

NDS