APHC010177922022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 5 FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 763 OF 2022 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order and decree passed in I.A.No.452/2020 in R.C.A.No.16 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Rent Appellate Controller cum Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dt- 22.02.2022. BETWEEN: Chikkam Srinivas @ Chinni, S/o. Adinarayana, aged about 41 years, R/o. D.No.l-l-56/B, Kondayyapalem, Kakinada, East Godavari District ...Petitioner (Appellant/Petitioner) AND Mummidi Rambabu Ramachandra Rao, S/o. late Surya Rao, aged about 51 years, R/o. D.No. 1-12-25, Kondayyapalem, Kakinada, East Godavari District ...Respondent Respondent/Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner:- SRI. V.V.L.N. SARMA Counsel for the Respondent:- SRI. N. SIVA REDDY The Court made the following: APHC010177922022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311] (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the ninth day of May, two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.763 of 2022 Between: Chikkam Srinivas @ Chinni ...Petitioner and Mummidi Rambabu @ Ramachandra Rao Counsel for the petitioner: I .V. V. L N. Sarma ...Respondent Counsel for the respondent: I.N. Siva Reddy The Court made the following: // 2 BSB,J C.R.P.No.763 of 2022 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the against the order, dated 22.02.2022 R.C.A.No.16 of 2018 Constitution of India is filed dismissing I.A.No.422 of 2020 iin on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, filed under Order XLI rule 27 and Section 151 C.P.C. to receive the internet copy of the the file of this Court as additional evidence. proceedings in S.A.No.809 of 2006 on 2. The petitioner is the appellant and the respondent herein i respondent in the appeal. IS the 3. The case of the petitioner, is briefly, as follows; Previously, Singuluri Venkateswara Rao filed of 1994 against Mummidi Surya Rao claiming [ M. Surya Rao with regard to the schedule R.C.C.No.15 of 2013 Kakinada-cum-Rent Controller. a suit in O.S.No.116 himself to be adopted by property covered by on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, During the pendency of the suit. Mummidi Surya Rao died. The respondent Ramachandra Rao who i in this petition, i.e., Mummidi IS the natural brother of the plaintiff i;. petitioner in R.C.C.No.15 of 2013 as though its original was filed in in O.S.No.116 of 1994 and the 2"^ fabricated the Will, dated 31.07.1996 R.C.C., got its certified copy marked as exhibit P7. Mummidi Surya Rao IS no way concerned with the petition schedule property in R.C.C.No.15 of 2013. The said property belongs to C.Adinarayana of the petitioner. Therefore, Mummidi who is the father Surya Rao has no right to property. The petitioner contested execute the Will with regard to this the Will as it is the only certified copy and that it was never executed by Mummidi Surya Rao. Against the decree of 1994, the plaintiff / Singuluri Venkateswara and judgment in O.S.No.116 Rao filed the second 3 BSB,J C.R.P.No.763 of 2022 appeal in S.A.No.809 of 2006 before this Court and the same is pending. The petitioner is advised to file a copy of the proceedings of the pending second appeal as it is important in the light of the facts aforesaid. The petitioner could not file the same earlier. There are no willful laches on the part of the petitioner in not filing the document previously. Unless the document is received as additional evidence, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss. The petition was opposed by filing counter of the respondent denying the averments in the petition and further stating that the petitioner is inventing one petition after the other to drag on the proceedings, instead of submitting the arguments in the appeal and that the document is in no way concerned with the petitioner and further that the plaintiff in O.S.No.118 of 2014 lost his battle in the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court and now, the second appeal is pending before this Court. It is further stated that after filing the respondent’s eviction suit against Singuluri Venkateswara Rao in O.S.No.445 of 2002 already marked as exhibit P8 in R.C.C.No.15 of 2013 and eviction was ordered in the suit. It is further stated that the Will, dated 31.07.1996, was marked as exhibit P7 in O.S.No.445 of 2002, and therefore, the petitioner is well aware of the proceedings and the document already filed in the Court. It is also stated that they could not take such pleas against the owner and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 4. After hearing both the parties, the petition in I.A.No.452 of 2020 was dismissed. The appellate authority observed that in the light of the admissions of the respondent, it is clear that the dispute is purely between Singuluri Venkateswara Rao and the petitioners and that the document proposed to be filed is in no way connected to the rights of 5. / 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.763 of 2022 the parties in the petition and moreover, till the second disposed of by this Court, it will have no impact on the proceedings in the petition in R.C.C.No.15 of 2013 at least to think a change of ownership over the petition schedule property. Therefore, the petition was dismissed. appeal is 6. Having been aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed stating that the appellate authority ought to have seen that O.S.No.116 of 1994 filed against Mummidi Surya Rao, Sesharatnam and Rama Chandra Rao out of whom the second and third named persons are the petitioners No.1 and 2 in the present case and that the suit was dismissed and the first appeal was also dismissed and the second appeal was filed and is pending. Since the matter is sub-judice and the petitioner No.2 claiming as adopted son of Mummidi Surya Rao brought into existence Will marked as exhibit P7 and filed the present R.C.C.No.15 of 2013, along with Sesharatnam for eviction of the respondent. It is a necessary document. It is further contended that the findings of the appellate authority that the proceedings in S.A.No.809 of 2006 are in no way connected to the rights of the parties in the present matter and that the appellate authority ought to have granted permission to file the additional evidence. 7. Since the appeal is related to the matter of tenancy between the petitioner and the respondent, the claim of Singuluri Venkateswara Rao on ground of adoption by Mummidi Surya Rao has no bearing. Moreover, the claim of Mummidi Ramachandra Rao is based on the Will irrespective of the status of Singuluri Venkateswara Rao. The conflicting claims, if any, between Singuluri Venkateswara Rao and Mummidi Ramachandra Rao is not the subject matter of the present dispute. That apart, the status of the second appeal as pending before / I / 5 BSBJ C.R.P.No.763 of 2022 this Court is not in dispute, necessary to file any additional evidence. Therefore, for that purpose, it is not As such, the appellate authority rightly dismissed the petition and the order impugned does not require any interference. 8. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Court of Rent Appellate Controller 2. One CC to SRI. VV L N cum Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. SARMA Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. N. SIVA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two C.D Copies. Ssl nm V \ : high court \ DATED:09/05/2025 ORDER CRP.NO. 763 OF 2022 .P i CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISn/IISSED. 3