1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1054 OF 2020 Petition under Article 227 of Consistution of India aggrieved by the Order dated 13/02/2020 in lA No.164 of 2019 in AS No.09 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni. Between: P. Rajasekhar, S/o P. Eranna, Hindu, aged about 48 years, cultivator, H. Muravani Village, Peddakadabur Mandal, Kurnool District ...PETITIONER/PETITIONER/APPELLANT AND 1. P. Soma Sekhar, S/o P. Eranna, Hindu, aged about 46 years, cultivator 2. P. Nagaraj, S/o P. Eranna, Hindu, aged about 38 years. 3. P. Chandra Sekhar, S/o P. Eranna, Hindu, aged about 28 years, 4. P. Manjunatha, S/o P. Eranna, Hindu, aged about 46 years. (Respondents 1 to 4 are R/o H. Muravani Village, Peddakadabur Mandal, Kurnool District) 5. Lalithamma, D/o P. Eranna, W/o Nagabhushana, Hindu, aged 44 years, watchman, Vitta Kristappa's factory, near prathakar talkies, Adoni. r r 6. Venkaiah Setty, S/o not known Hindu, aged 45 years, oil depot, Desai complex, court road, Yemmiganur. 7. Chandrasekhar, S/o not known Hindu, aged 30 years, Surya wines, *l^edda Bhavi, Near Srinivasa Talkies, Yammiganur, Kurnool District ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 order stay of all further proceedings in A.S.No. 9 of 2014 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M CHALAPATI RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V DYUMANI The Court made the following ORDER : APHC010260312020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1054/2020 Between: P. Rajasekhar ...PETITIONER AND P Soma Sekhar and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.MCHALAPATI RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.VDYUMANI The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1054 of 2020 ORDER: The present civil revision petition is filed questioning the order dated 13.02.2020 in I.A.No.164 of 2019 in A.S.No.9 of 2014 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni. The petitioner is the appellant/plaintiff. The suit was filed for 2. partition of suit schedule properties. The suit properties are agricultural lands in 10 various survey numbers of different extents as detailed in Schedule-1, Item 1 of the plant schedule properties. The Schedule-1, Item 2 properties are house properties having several house numbers. The Schedule-ll consists of loans, advance to various persons under registered mortgages recovered by the defendants. The suit was dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni after contest. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed A.S.No.9 of 2014. In the appeal, the petitioner filed the application l.A.No.164 of 2019 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking to include two items in the schedule properties. This application was opposed by the respondents more on the 3. merits of the claim; The District Appellate Court dismissed the above application on the ground that the petition is filed 11 years after it was brought to the notice of the petitioner about exclusion of such properties. Hence, the civil revision petition. 2 Heard Sri M.Chalapati Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and 4. Smt. V.Dyumani, learned counsel for the respondents. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.1 indicates that total 5. extent of joint family property in Sy.No.828 A is Ac.1.83 cents, but the amendment is sought by including Ac.1.00 cents only. It was pleaded that the total extent of Ac.1.83 cents was partitioned and Ac. 1.00 cents fell to the share of Petitioner and Ac.0.83 cents fell to the share of Defendant No.4. As regards Sy.No.598, Ac.0.06 cents out of Ac.0.30 cents was allotted to the Petitioner as he has 1/5“^ share therein. 6. A reading of the counter affidavit also indicates that schedule property was a joint family property. Once the proposed property is admitted to be joint family property, there is no point in denying amendment as sought. The plea that there was partition between members of joint family property and Ac.0.83 cents in Sy.No.828 A was not included in the schedule are defenses which are still available to the defendants and the stand taken in the written statement remained unaffected. 7. Therefore, the trial Court erred in rejecting the application. Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.02.2020 is set aside. No order as to costs. 3 / As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. SDI- SK.MOHAMMED RAFI | ASSISTANT REGISTRAR “ //TRUE COPY// r SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni. One CC to SRI. M CHALAPATI RAO Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI. V DYUMANI Advocate [OPUC] THREE CD COPIES 2. 3. 4. TAC 1 HIGH COURT DATED:20/01/2025 \ ORDER CRP.No.1054 of 2020 h _\v. 21 APH 2025 fa: Current Section THE CRP IS ALLOWED