APHC010303152025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADE AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1490 OF 2025, 1491 OF 2025. 1492 OF 2015 AND 1493 OF 2025 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 1490 OF 2025: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Common Order dated 01.04.2025 passed in I.A. No.144 of 2025, in O.S. No. 455 of 2022 on the file of the Hon’ble Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tenali. Between: Nallagorla Jagadeswari, W/o Nallagorla Srikanth, Aged about 35 years, R/o D.No.7-17, Perukalapudi (V), Duggirala (M), Guntur House Wife District ...Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff AND Mulaga Veeranjaneyulu, S/o Sriramulu, Aged about 60 years. Cultivation, R/o Yadavuru (V), Amruthaluru (M), Guntur District ...Respondent/Respondent/Defendant lA 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 grant interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.455 of 2022 on the file i.f of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division). Tenali, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.R.Raghavendra Rao, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent: Sri N.Sriram Murthy, Advocate APHC010303122025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 1491 OF 2025: under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by I.A. No.142 of 2025, in O.S. of the Hon’ble Principal Civil Judge (Junior Petition filed the Common Order dated 01.04.2025 passed in No. 455 of 2022 on the file Division), Tenali. Between: Nallagorla Jagadeswari. W/o Nallagorla Srikanth, Aged about 35 years. D.No.7-17, Perukalapudi (V), Duggirala (M), Guntur House Wife, R/o District „..Petitioner/Petitloner/Plaintiff AND Mulaga Veeranjaneyulu, S/o Sriramulu, Aged about 60 years, R/o Yadavuru (V), Amruthaluru (M), Guntur District ...Respondent/Respondent/Defendant Cultivation, lA NO: 2 OF 2025 praying that in the circumstances Petition under Section 151 CPC, stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be O.S.No.455 of 2022 pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings in Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Tenali, pending on the file of the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.R.Raghavendra Rao, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent: Sri N.Sriram Murthy, Advocate APHC010303172025 HjiiS S PFX/if^inN PETITION NO. 1492 OF 2025^ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by Order dated 01.04.2025 passed in I.A. No.145 of 2025, in O.S. Hon’ble Principal Civil Judge (Junior the Common No. 455 of 2022 on the file of the Division), Tenali. Between: Nallagorla Jagadeswari, W/o Nallagorla Srikanth, Aged about 35 years, Perukalapudi (V), Duggirala (M), Guntur House Wife, R/o D.No.7-17 District ...Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff AND Sriramulu, Aged about 60 years. Mulaga Veeranjaneyulu, S/o R/o Yadavuru (V), Amruthaluru (M), Guntur District ...Respondent/Respondent/Defendant Cultivation : Sri K.R.Raghavendra Rao, Advocate the Respondent; Sri N.Sriram Murthy, Advocate Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for APHC010303092025 Z} CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 1493 OF 202^ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by Order dated 01.04.2025 passed in I.A. No.143 of 2025, in O. . Hon’ble Principal Civil Judge (Junior the Common No. 455 of 2022 on the file of the Division), Tenali. Between; Nallagorla Jagadeswari, W/o Nallagorla Srikanth, Aged about 35 years, House Wife, R/o D.No.7-17, Perukalapudi (V), Duggirala (M), Guntur District ...Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff AND Mulaga Veeranjaneyulu, S/o Sriramulu, Aged about 60 years. Cultivation, R/o Yadavuru (V), Amruthaluru (M), Guntur District ...Respondent/Respondent/Defendant lA NO: 2 OF 2025 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.455 of 2022 the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Tenali, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition. Petition under Section 151 CPC on Counsel for the Petitioner; Sri K.R.Raghavendra Rao, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent: Sri N.Sriram Murthy, Advocate The Court made the following order; APHC010303152025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3207] s- FRIDAY.THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 1490, 1491,1492 and 1493 2025 Between; 1.NALLAGORLA JAGADESWARI. W/0 NALLAGORLA SRIKANTH, R/0 D.NO.7-17, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS HOUSE WIFE, PERUKALAPUDI (V) DUGGIRALA (M), GUNTUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1.MULAGA VEERANJANEYULU, S/o Sriramulu, Aged about 60 years. Cultivation, R/o Yadavuru (V), Amruthaluru (M). Guntur 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 toThe above named Petitioner begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition being aggrieved by the Common Order dated 01.04.2025 passed in LA. No. 144/2025, in O.S. No. 455/2022 on the file of the Honble Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tenali, for the following among other lA 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 grant interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.455/2022 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Tenali, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: % 1.K. R. RAGHAVENDRA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1.N SRIRAM MURTHY The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 1490. 1491, 1492 and 1493 of 2025 COMMON ORDER:- The Civil Revision Petitions have been filed aggrieved by dated 01.04.2025 passed in the Common Order, I.A. Nos. 142/2025, 143/2025, 144/2025 and 145/2025 in O.S.No.455 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tenali. Consequently, prayed to set-aside the impugned Common Order. Heard Sri.K.R.Raghavendra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notices were served on the respondent, none 2. appeared. The, petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the 3. defendant in the Suit. The petitioner herein has filed a Suit in O.S.No.455 of 2022 the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, seeking Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant, his men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. Pending Suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.142 of 2025 praying the trial court to receive the additional chief evidence of PW.1, I.A.No.143 of 2025 is filed 4. on 2 the trial court to reopen the Suit for plaintiffs further praying evidence, I.A.No.144 of 2025 is filed praying the trial court to receive the petition mentioned documents on behalf of the plaintiff, and I.A.No.145 of 2025 is filed praying the court to recall PW1. Upon hearing both sides, the trial court dismissed the Interlocutory Application by way of a Common Order, dated 01.04.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court erred in rejecting request of the petitioner to reopen the evidence of plaintiff. It is contended that reopening the evidence would not delay the proceedings or prejudice the respondent, who retains the right to cross-examine. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court failed to appreciate the principles of Audi alteram partem. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the trial court has wrongly concluded that the request to recall evidence of PW.1 at the stage of cross examination of defendants cannot be considered. Further, he contends that rejecting the request of the petitioner to recall evidence of PW.1 would deprives a fair opportunity to present her case. The trial court without coming to a conclusion whether further examination is necessary or not, rejected the request of the petitioner. 6. 3 1% Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial court failed to appreciate the fact that the documents are public records evincing possession and ownership of the petitioner, and rejected the request to receive the petition mentioned documents behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff. Despite sufficient cause is shown to receive documents, the trial court rejected the request of the petitioner. In addition, the trial court erred in rejecting the request of the petitioner to admit the additional affidavit which is necessary to establish the petitioner’s claim of possession. 7. on A perusal of the material available on record goes to show that the trial court having considered the submissions of the counsels appeared on either side and on perusal of the record, dismissed the petitions by its order dated 01.04.2025. Admittedly, the Suit is of the year 2022, filed for granting of Permanent Injunction. Written Statement also filed, issues were settled on 27.01.2024. The evidence of plaintiff closed on 25.07.2024. The evidence of defendant commenced on 09.08.2024 and the matter is posted for cross examination of DWs.2 to 4. At the stage of examination of DWs.2 to 4, the present petitions are filed to reopen the suit to receive additional documents along with chief examination affidavit of PW.1 and to adduce further evidence by recalling of PW.1. The documents sought to be produced before this Court appears to be sale deeds and tax receipts. Considering 8. cross 4 the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mukesh Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr^ and Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab^, the trial court finds that no sufficient and cogent reasons to consider the plea of the petitioner. The trial court also opined that nexus of these documents with the suit proceedings is not whispered and moreover, the reasons for filing of these documents at this belated stage of this case are not even explained properly and accordingly, held that there are no merits to allow these petitions. A careful perusal of the order passed by the trial court 9. reveals that, at the time of cross examination of DWs.2 to 4, the documents intend to be brought on record as evidence, are sale deeds and house tax receipts, and the petitioner failed to explain the reasons for filing of those documents at that stage. The record also reveals that sufficient opportunities are provided to the petitioner. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to interfere 10. into the order of the trial court as there is no infirmity or illegality in the said order. S.L.P(Crl) Diary No(s).8905/2022 ^ (2015) 3 see 220 5 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- U SRIDEVl ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tenali, Guntur 2. One CC to Sri K.R.Raghavendra Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri N.Sriram Murthy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies GPC vna HIGH COURT DATED: 22/08/2025 ORDER CRP Nos. 1490 OF 2025,1491 OF 2025, 1492 OF 2025 & 1493 OF 2025 ^ 15 SEP 2025 ^ Current Seciion OespATC'^SS^' OV mi 69/i DISMISSING THESE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS