APHC010163922023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1012/2023 Between: 1. SMT. PATIL SARASWATHAMMA, W/O P.VISHNUVARDHAN REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, AGRICULTURALIST, R/O DEVANABANDA VILLAGE, PATTIKONDA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 1. POTLAPATI LAKSHMI REDDY, S/o Y.Ramadas Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 55 Years, Agriculturalist, R/o Devanabanda Village, Pattikonda Mandal, Kurnool District. Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to allow the Revision Petition and set aside the order in I.A.No.677 of 2022 in O.S.No.26 of 2012 dated 03.12.2022 passed by the Learned Junior Civil Judg IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.26 of 201 the Learned Junior Civil Judge, Pattikonda pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner against the Order dated 21.10.2022 in IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 1012 & 1037/2023 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1012/2023 SMT. PATIL SARASWATHAMMA, W/O P.VISHNUVARDHAN REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, AGRICULTURALIST, R/O DEVANABANDA VILLAGE, PATTIKONDA MANDAL, KURNOOL ...PETITIONER AND POTLAPATI LAKSHMI REDDY, S/o Y.Ramadas Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 55 Years, Agriculturalist, R/o Devanabanda Village, Pattikonda Mandal, Kurnool District. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to allow the Revision Petition and set aside the order in I.A.No.677 of 2022 in O.S.No.26 of 2012 dated 03.12.2022 passed by the Learned Junior Civil Judge, Pattikonda and pass 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 stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.26 of 201 the Learned Junior Civil Judge, Pattikonda pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner against the Order dated 21.10.2022 in IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA /2023 SMT. PATIL SARASWATHAMMA, W/O P.VISHNUVARDHAN REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, AGRICULTURALIST, R/O DEVANABANDA VILLAGE, PATTIKONDA MANDAL, KURNOOL ...PETITIONER POTLAPATI LAKSHMI REDDY, S/o Y.Ramadas Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 55 Years, Agriculturalist, R/o Devanabanda Village, Pattikonda ...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 topleased to allow the Revision Petition and set aside the order in I.A.No.677 of 2022 in O.S.No.26 of 2012 dated 03.12.2022 passed by the 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 stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.26 of 2012 on the file of the Learned Junior Civil Judge, Pattikonda pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner against the Order dated 21.10.2022 in 2 I.A.No. 677 of 2022 in O.S.No. 26 of 2012 on the Junior Civil Judge, Pattikonda and pass such 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 extend the Interim Orders that were passed by this Hon’bie Court in C.R.P.No. 1012 of 2023 on 17.04.2023 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1037/2023 Between: 1. SMT. PATIL SARASWATHAMMA, W/O P.VISHNUVARCLHAN REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, AGRICULTURALIST, R/A DEVANABANDA VILLAGE, PATTIKONDA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. POLTLAPATI LAKSHMI REDDY, S/o Y.Ramadas Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 55 Years, Agriculturalist, R/o Devanabanda Village, Pattikonda Mandal, Kurnool 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 topleased to allow the Revision Petition and set aside the order in I.A.No.678 of 2022 in O.S.No.26 of 2012 dated 03.12.2022 passed by the Learned Junior Civil Judge, Pattikonda and pass such other order or orders as the Honourable Court deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice 3 IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.26 of 2012 on the file of the Learned Junior Civil Judge, Pattikonda pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner against the Order dated 21.10.2022 in I.A.No. 678 of 2022 in 0.S.No. 26 of 2012 on the Junior Civil Judge, Pattikonda and pass 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 extend the Interim Orders that were passed by this Hon’ble Court in C.R.P.No.1037 of 2023 on 20.04.2023 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. 4 The Court made the following Common Order: The Civil Revision Petition Nos.1012 and 1037 of 2023 are filed against the dismissal order passed by the Court below in I.A.Nos.677 & 678 of 2022 in O.S.No.26 of 2012, seeking re-opening of evidence of defendant and to recall D.W.1 and permit the petitioner for marking schedule documents through D.W.1. 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.26 of 2012 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, at Pattikonda. The petitioner filed the above mentioned suit seeking to grant permanent injunction as against the respondent/defendant therein. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent/defendant has filed written statement duly stating that one Potlapati Hanumantha Reddy had purchased the property to an extent of Ac.4.00 cents out of Ac.10.98 cents in survey No.9 in Chinnahulthy Village and Pattikonda Mandal, after demise, his legal heirs had sold the land to the parents of the respondent. 4. Thereafter, during the course of trial, P.Ws.1 & 2 and D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined by the trial Court. During the course of examination, a document which is styled as Rights of Holdings, dated 07.03.2012 was marked by the respondent/defendant as Ex.B.6, which refers to two documents i.e., Mortgage Registered deed dated 03.05.1926 and Register Sale deed dated 25.05.1938. Immediately, thereafter, the petitioner approached the registering authorities and got verified the said two documents, which are referred in Ex.B.6 and 5 found that those documents are false and as such, the petitioner filed I.A.Nos.677 & 678 of 2022 in O.S.No.26 of 2012, requesting the Court below to re-open the defendant’s evidence and also to recall the D.W.1 and permit the petitioner for marking of schedule documents dated 03.05.1926 and 25.05.1938, which are referred in the Rights of Holdings (Ex.B.6). 5. As per the material on record, Ex.B.6 – rights of holding dated 07.03.2012, was marked during the examination of D.W.1, which refers to Mortgage Registered Deed dated 03.05.1926 and another registered sale deed 25.05.1938 of D.W.1’s schedule land. According to Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C, at any stage of the proceedings, witness can be recalled, if the Court satisfies that there is necessity to cross-examine the witness. Revision petitioner herein sought reopening of the evidence only for limited purpose i.e. to cross-examine D.W.1 for marking of those documents. Therefore, having considered the nature of the suit and claims of the parties of the said suit, this Court feels that it is necessary to reopen the evidence and recall D.W.1 for marking mortgage deed dated 03.05.1926 and registered sale deed dated 25.05.1938. Since Ex.B.6 – rights of holdings was already marked, marking of mortgage deed dated 03.05.1926 and registered sale deed dated 25.05.1938 would not cause any prejudice to the respondent – defendant, as these two documents were referred in Ex.B.6. 6. In the result, both the civil revision petitions are allowed, directing the Trial Court to fix a date for cross-examination of D.W.1 and to mark mortgage 6 deed dated 03.05.1926 and registered sale deed dated 25.05.1938 and in the event the learned counsel for the revision petitioner failed to cross-examine D.W.1 and mark the said documents, the Trial Court is permitted to close the evidence and proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. No costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 11.08.2025 MDP