i. APHC010324172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AWIARAVATI FRIDAY THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1555 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Civil Revision Petition against the Order dated 19.06.2025 in LA. No. 308 of 2025 in O.S. No. 214 of 2018 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Kaikaluru. Between: Kala Sitaramanjaneyulu, S/o Late Venkatramaiah Aged 65 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o Kondaplli Village of ibrahimpatnam mandal, Krishna District, Myalavaram JCJC Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner/1 Respondent/1®* Defendent AND 1. Meduri Venkata Kalyani, W/o Late Sriramachandra Murthy, Aged about 52 years, Occ House Wife Mandal, Kaikalur R/o. Padamatipalem village of Kalidindi ...Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff 2. Damaraju Sitamahalakshmi, W/o Ramesh, Hindu, aged 45 years. Cultivation, resident of Kottampuram of Eluru JCJC. W.G. District, Eluru 3. Kala Venkatakrishna Rao, S/o Venkatappaiah Hindu, aged 67 years. Cultivation, Resident of Kalidindi Village and Mandal, Krishna District Kaikalur JCJC. 4. Kala Subramanaya Kasimaruthi Venkatappaiah Sharma Krishna Rao, Hindu, aged 35 years. Cultivation, Village and Mandal, Krishna District, Kaikalur JCJC. 5. Kala Ramakrishna, S/o Venkata Krishna Rao Cultivation, Resident of Kalidindi Village and Mandal Kaikalur JCJC. 6. Kota Srilakshmi, W/o Venkataratnam Cultivation, District, Bhimavaram JCJC. 7. Penumasta Srinivasa Raju, 7S/o Ramaraju, Hindu, aged 27 years Cultivation, Resident of Juvvalapalem Village of Kalla Mandal District, Bhimavaram JCJC. 8. Padamatl Satyanarayana, S/o Ranga Rao, Hindu, aged 37 years. Cultivation, resident of Elurupadu Village of Kalla Mandal Bhimavaram JCJC. S/o Venkata resident of Kalidindi Hindu, aged 32 years, Krishna District, Hindu, aged 30 years. Resident of Bondada Village of Kalla Mandal, W.G. , W.G. W.G. District, ...Respondents/Defendent iA NO: 1 OF 2n2fi Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court stay all further proceedings in O.S. No. 214/2018 on the file of the Learned Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) -Cum- Judicial may be pleased to First Class Magistrate At Kaikaluru, till pending disposal of the main revision petition 4 ■ Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K V ADITYA CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondents: the Court made the following order: I APHC010324172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION petition NO- 1 PRADESH [3299] Between: 1.KALA SITARAMANJANEYULU, ‘ 65 YEARS. OCC CULTIVATION. ibrahimpatnam mandal. JCJC ANDHRA PRADESH. S/0 LATE VENKATRAMAIAH . R/0 kondaplli village of KRISHNA DISTRICT. MYALAVARAM AGED ...PETITIONER AND MURTHY Arm ar^t SRIRAMACHANDRA PAnAr^I; ^ HOUSE WIFE PADAMATIPALEM VILLAGE OF KALIDINDI MANDAL, KAIKALUR ^ W/0 RAMESH, HINDU AGED 45 SlSTrSpu’ S.I^LA VENKATAKRISHNA RAO, S/O VENKATAPPAIAH CULTIVATION, RESIDENT OF KALIDINDI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, KAIKALUR JCJC 4.^LA SUBRAMANAYA KASIMARUTHI VENKATAPPAIAH SHARMA ENKATA KRISHNA RAO, HINDU, AGED 35 YEARs' krishnZ?s'‘/p'^^®"’"^'' ^nd mandal' KRISHNA DISTRICT. KAIKALUR JCJC. ^'^5/^rpR '^ENKATA KRISHNA RAO HINDU AGED ' cultivation, resident OF KALIDINDI VILLAGE AND mandal. KRISHNA DISTRICT. KAIKALUR JCJC. R/O. if I HINDU I 2 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.1555 of 2025) 6.KOTA SRILAKSHMI, W/0 VENKATARATNAM, YEARS. CULTIVATION KALLA MANDAL, W.G. DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM JCJC. HINDU, AGED 30 RESIDENT OF BONDADA VILLAGE OF 7.PENUMASTA SRINIVASA RAJU, 7S/0 RAMARAJU, HINDU, AGED 27 YEARS CULTIVATION, RESIDENT OF JUWALAPALEM VILLAGE OF KALLA MANDAL, W.G. DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM JCJC. 8.PADAMATI SATYANARAYANA, S/0 RANGA RAO, HINDU, AGED 37 YEARS. CULTIVATION, RESIDENT OF ELURUPADU VILLAGE OF KALLA MANDAL, W.G. DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM JCJC. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 petitioner begs to present this memorandum of Civil Revision Petition against the Order dated 19.06.2025 in LA. No. 308 of 2025 in O.S. No. 214 of 2018 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Kaikaluru on 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 stay all further proceedings in O.S. No. 214/2018 on the file of the Learned Learned CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) -CUM- JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT KAIKALURU, till pending disposal of the main revision petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K V ADITYA CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1. 3 (RNTJ C.R.P.No.l555 of 2025) The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri K.V. Aditya Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner The 1®‘ respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.214 of 2018 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kaikaluru. The petitioner is the 1®^ defendant, and respondents 2 to 8 are the other defendants in the suit. 2. 3. In the plaint schedule property, the survey number of Item No.2 was mentioned as R.S.No.775, situated at Kalidindi Village and Mandal, Kaikalur Sub-Registry, Krishna District with the following boundaries; East; Road; South; Yalavarthi Venkateswarlu; West; Donthuboyina Venkaiah; North; Dulipala Suryanarayana. 4. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.308 of 2025 in O.S.No.214 of 2018 seeking amendment, which was allowed by order dated 19.06.2025 by the learned trial Court, permitting the amendment of Item No.2 to reflect the survey number as R.S.No.776/3 instead of R.S.No.775. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.06.2025, the present Civil Revision Petition has under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. been filed 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the application 'for a^^ndment, the plaintiff sought R.S.No.776/3. However, R.S.No.775, which was actually mentioned in Item correction of R.S.No.773/1 to 4 (RNT,J " C.R.P.No.l555 of 2025) No.2 of the plaint schedule, was not referred to in the amendment application. He further submits that the application, therefore, was incorrect and ought not to have been allowed. It is also submitted that this discrepancy specifically brought to the notice of the trial Court through the counter affidavit, particularly in paragraph 2, pointing out that R.S.No.773/1 is not mentioned anywhere in the plaint. was 6. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. In the amendment application, the plaintiff clearly stated in paragraph No.2 that the amendment sought pertained to Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property. 7. 8. Paragraph No.2 of the counter affidavit reads as under: “Now if the proposed amendment is accepted it will lead to multiplicity ofproceedings as the interest of 3rd parties will be affected due to the latches of the petitioner. Even now the petitioner did not state the survey that was mentioned in the plaint. R.S.No.773/1 is no where mentioned in the plaint and therefore it is ridiculous to amend a survey which was not mentioned in the plaint. The petitioner is guilty of latches and she cannot take advantage of the same. The proposed at this stage is not permissible under law f 5 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.l555 of 2025) I Although the application mistakenly referred to R.S.No.773/1, it specifically sought correction in respect of Item No.2, which originally referred 9. to R.S.No.775. Therefore, despite the erroneous mention of the survey number in the application, the trial Court rightly allowed the correction as it pertains to Item No.2 of the plaint schedule, and the intended correction was apparent. The objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is 10. technical in nature. In exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not find any illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court so as to warrant interference. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit, and accordingly 11. stands dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. SDI- B. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Civil Judge (Junior Division) -Cum- Judicial First Class Magistrate At Kaikaluru. 2. One CC to Sri. K V Aditya Chowdary Advocate [OPUC] 3. THREE CD Copies. MKP AL HIGH COURT DATED:11/07/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 1555 OF 2025 I 2 3 SEP 2125 E ^ . Current Section . ^ DISMISSING THE CRP