APHC010488352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2373 of 2025 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2372 of 2025 Between: 1. SHAMIRUNNISA BEGUM, W/O. C.M.AZMATHULLAH, AGED 77 YEARS, HOUSE-WIFE, R/O.DOOR NO.B NAGAR, GREEN PARK COLONY HYDERAB 2. ZAKIR HUSSAIN,, 2. S/O. C.M.AZMATHULLAH, AGED 49 YEARS. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE R/O.DOOR NO.B SAROOR NAGAR, GREEN PARK COLONY, HYDERABAD. 3. MAZHAR HUSSAIN,, S/O.C.M.AZMATHULLAH AGED 45 YEARS. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O.DOOR NAGAR, GREEN PARK COLONY, HYDERABAD. 1. M ANEES AHMED, Housewife, R/o.Door No.14 Andhra PradeshS/o. Makandar Akbar Shah aged about 42 years. Housewife, R/o.Door No.14 Andhra Pradesh CRP Nos.2372 & 2373 of 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2372/2025 Along with CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2373 of 2025 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2372 of 2025 SHAMIRUNNISA BEGUM, W/O. C.M.AZMATHULLAH, AGED 77 WIFE, R/O.DOOR NO.B-58, ROAD NO.9, SAROOR NAGAR, GREEN PARK COLONY HYDERABAD. ZAKIR HUSSAIN,, 2. S/O. C.M.AZMATHULLAH, AGED 49 YEARS. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE R/O.DOOR NO.B-58, ROAD NO.9, SAROOR NAGAR, GREEN PARK COLONY, HYDERABAD. MAZHAR HUSSAIN,, S/O.C.M.AZMATHULLAH AGED 45 YEARS. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O.DOOR NO.B-58, ROAD NO.9, SAROOR NAGAR, GREEN PARK COLONY, HYDERABAD. ...PETITIONER(S) AND M ANEES AHMED, S/o. Makandar Akbar Shah aged about 42 years. Housewife, R/o.Door No.14-772, Goolingspet, Chittoor town district, Andhra PradeshS/o. Makandar Akbar Shah aged about 42 years. Housewife, R/o.Door No.14-772, Goolingspet, Chittoor town RC,J CRP Nos.2372 & 2373 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI SHAMIRUNNISA BEGUM, W/O. C.M.AZMATHULLAH, AGED 77 58, ROAD NO.9, SAROOR ZAKIR HUSSAIN,, 2. S/O. C.M.AZMATHULLAH, AGED 49 YEARS. 58, ROAD NO.9, SAROOR NAGAR, GREEN PARK COLONY, HYDERABAD. MAZHAR HUSSAIN,, S/O.C.M.AZMATHULLAH AGED 45 YEARS. 58, ROAD NO.9, SAROOR ...PETITIONER(S) S/o. Makandar Akbar Shah aged about 42 years. 772, Goolingspet, Chittoor town district, Andhra PradeshS/o. Makandar Akbar Shah aged about 42 years. 772, Goolingspet, Chittoor town district, RC,J CRP Nos.2372 & 2373 of 2025 2 ...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 toThe above named petitioner begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition to this Honble Court, against the Order dated 04.11.2024 in lA No.368 of 2023 in O.S.No.237 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chittoor, for the following among other grounds 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 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. UMADEVI MANCHALA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2373/2025 Between: 1. SHAMIRUNNISA BEGUM, W/O. C.M.AZMATHULLAH, AGED 77 YEARS. HOUSE-WIFE, R/O.DOOR NO.B-58, ROAD NO.9, SAROOR NAGAR, GREEN PARK COLONY, HYDERABAD. 2. ZAKIR HUSSAIN,, S/O. C.M.AZMATHULLAH, AGED 49 YEARS. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE R/O.DOOR NO.B-58, ROAD NO.9, SAROOR NAGAR, GREEN PARK COLONY, HYDERABAD. 3. MAZHAR HUSSAIN, , S/O.C.M.AZMATHULLAH, AGED 45 YEARS. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O.DOOR NO.B-58, ROAD NO.9, SAROOR NAGAR, GREEN PARK COLONY, HYDERABAD. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. M SAJIDUNNISA BEGUM, , W/o. Makandar Akbar Shah aged about 42 years. Housewife, R/o.Door No.14-772, Goolingspet, Chittoor town and district, Andhra Pradesh. RC,J CRP Nos.2372 & 2373 of 2025 3 ...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 to begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition to this Hon'ble Court, against the Order dated 04.11.2024 in lA No.364 of 2023 in O.S.No.229 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chittoor, 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 to stay all further proceedings in lA No.364 of 2023 in O.S.No.229 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chittoor pending disposal of the above revision petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. UMADEVI MANCHALA RC,J CRP Nos.2372 & 2373 of 2025 4 COMMON ORDER These Civil Revision Petitions are filed aggrieved by the docket orders passed the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chitoor, whereby and whereunder the petitions filed by the revisionists under Order-XXVI, Rule- 3 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) were dismissed. 2. The petitioners are the defendants and respondents are plaintiffs. 3. The facts that led to filing of the Civil Revision Petitions in brief are that in the suits filed by the respondent of the Civil Revision Petitions, the petitioners, who were the defendants of the said suits, filed petitions under Order-XXVI, Rule-3 of Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of Advocate commissioner to record the evidence of defendant nos.1 and 2 and the said petitions were allowed and the same Advocate Commissioner was appointed in both the suits for the purpose mentioned in the petition. Later the Advocate Commissioner returned the warrant unexecuted along with a memo stating that the learned counsel for the defendants made a phone call to her putting the family members of the defendants in conference call and the defendants and family members after enquiring her as to whether she can read Urdu document, refused to lead evidence asking her to return the warrant. Thereupon the learned trial Judge, having observed that the defendants were called absent and no representation on their behalf, dismissed the petitions RC,J CRP Nos.2372 & 2373 of 2025 5 directing the defendants to adduce evidence in open Court, vide docket orders dated 04.11.2024. The said dismissal orders were challenged in these Civil Revision Petitions. 4. Heard Smt. M.Uma Devi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Despite served with notices none represented the respondents in both the Civil Revision Petitions. 5. Smt. M.Uma Devi, learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the grounds of the Civil Revision Petitions, would contend that the learned trial Judge without giving opportunity to the petitioners to offer their explanation on the memo filed by the Advocate Commissioner dismissed the petitions for the reasons that there was no representation for the petitioners. She would further contend that there is impropriety and also the impugned orders suffers from procedural unfairness and accordingly prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petitions. 6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The impugned order shows that on the petition filed by the defendants, advocate commissioner was appointed to record the evidence of defendant nos. 1 and 2. It further shows that the earlier commissioner RC,J CRP Nos.2372 & 2373 of 2025 6 returned the warrant on the ground that learned counsel for plaintiff raised an objection for execution of the warrant and pursuant to no objection reported by both the sides another Advocate Commissioner was appointed for recording the evidence of defendants 1 and 2. The Advocate commissioner returned the warrant along with memo stating that the defendants and their family members after enquiring whether she can read Urdu and stating that they need an Advocate commissioner who can read Urdu, asked her to return the warrant. The impugned orders further states that on that day the defendants were called absent and there was no representation on their behalf and this itself shows that the defendants are dragging the matter on one pretext or another without adducing their evidence and accordingly the petitions were dismissed, directing the defendants to adduce evidence in open court or else next steps would be ordered. 8. The court's action of passing an order based on an Advocate Commissioner's memo regarding non-cooperation without hearing the defendants raises issues of procedural fairness and violation of natural justice, as the defendants was not given an opportunity to contest the allegations. Declining to record the evidence through a commissioner and directing the defendants to appear in court and adduce evidence is a judicial decision and RC,J CRP Nos.2372 & 2373 of 2025 7 therefore the same requires an opportunity of being heard shall be given to both sides. 9. The impugned orders passed solely based on the memo filed by the Advocate Commissioner regarding non-cooperation without affording an opportunity to the party against whom such non-cooperation is alleged is unsustainable since violates the principles of natural justice. 10. In view of the above, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted back to the trial Court for fresh consideration. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed, setting aside the impugned docket orders and the matters are remitted back to the trial Court to hear the defendants and also the plaintiff and then pass orders afresh. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 17TH April, 2026. RR