Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23777 (AP)

SINGAMPALLI VENKATARAMANA v. MULAGAPATI SATYANARAYANA RAJU

CRP/1630/2025 · 2025-07-17

R Raghunandan Rao

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010334532025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1630/2025 Between: 1. SINGAMPALLI VENKATARAMANA, S/O. LATE PAIDIYYA, AGED 54 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O. THANGEDU VILLAGE, KOTAURATIA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. MULAGAPATI SATYANARAYANA RAJU, S/O. LATE SANYASIRAJU, AGED 56 YEARS. BUSINESS, R/O. DOOR NO. 1-9-286/P, RAMNAGAR, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE. 2. MULAGAPATI RAMAYYANNMA, W/O. LATE SANYASIRAJU, AGED 79 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. CHODAVARAM VILLAGE AND POST, CHODAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. (2ND RESPONDENT/1ST DEFENDANT IS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY) ...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 tos Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India before this Hon'ble Court being aggrieved by the order dated 05.03.2025 passed in I.A. No. 59 of 2025 in O.S. No.09 of 2020 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narsipatnam, 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 2 RRR, J C.R.P.No.1630 of 2025 pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.09 of 2020 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior of 2025Division), Narsipatnam, pending disposal of the C.R.P.No.1630 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAMESH BABU NELATURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 3 RRR, J C.R.P.No.1630 of 2025 The Court made the following order: Heard Sri N. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.9 of 2020 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narsipatnam, for recovery of money based on a mortgage against the 1st respondent herein and his mother, who is shown as the 2nd respondent. In the course of trial, the 1st respondent moved I.A.No.49 of 2025, for summoning the wife of the petitioner as a witness. It was the case of the 1st respondent that certain amounts had been paid to the wife of the petitioner herein and that she needs to be examined for demonstrating such payment. This application was allowed, by an order, dated 05.03.2025. 3. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has appraoched this Court, by way of the present Civil Revision Petition. 4. Sri N. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the contentions raised before the Trial Court, contends that the said order is not permissible in view of the prohibition under Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 128 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023). 5. Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as follows: “122. Communications during marriage.––No person who is or has been married, shall be compelled to disclose any 4 RRR, J C.R.P.No.1630 of 2025 communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married; nor shall he be permitted to disclose any such communication, unless the person who made it, or his representative in interest, consents, except in suits between married persons, or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other.” 6. This Section bars evidence being given by spouses, where the said evidence relates to communication between them in the course of their marriage. In the present case, the information sought from the proposed witnesses is whether she received any money from the respondents, in discharge of any debt. Such information cannot be treated to be a bar, under Section 122 of the Evidence Act (Section 128 of BSA). 7. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with this order and this Civil Revision Petition is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J 18.07.2025 MJA 5 RRR, J C.R.P.No.1630 of 2025 319 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1630 of 2025 18.07.2025 MJA