APHC010337752025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION Between: 1. VELAGANDULA VIVEK, SON OF PROF.V. ANANDAM, AGE- 39 YEARS, OCCU GANDHINAGAR, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE, INDIA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 10853, KINGSFORD LANE, FRI TEXAS, USA,75035 (REP. BY NATURAL FATHER AND GPA HOLDER V.ANANDAM, S/O. LATE SHANKARAIAH ) 1. V.SATYANANDA KUMAR, S/O V.S.R.MOHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 65 EARS, OCC- BUSINESS, 2. SMT.SREE REKHA, D/O. V. SATYANANDA KUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS, OCC- EMPLOYEE, BOTH RESIDENTS OF FLAT NO. 401, SRI SAIRAM RESIDENCY, DOOR NO. 11 STREET, RAMARAOPETA, KAKINADA D-2 ADDRESS ALSO AT 651, DEAUVILLE DR 8, MONROVILLEE, PA 15146, USA. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Mr.J.AZAD CHENDRA SHEKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Mr.M R S SRINIVAS 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 1638 of 2025 VELAGANDULA VIVEK, SON OF PROF.V. ANANDAM, 39 YEARS, OCCU-EMPLOYEE, R/O. H.NO.L GANDHINAGAR, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE, INDIA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 10853, KINGSFORD LANE, FRI TEXAS, USA,75035 (REP. BY NATURAL FATHER AND GPA HOLDER V.ANANDAM, S/O. LATE SHANKARAIAH ) ...PETITIONER AND V.SATYANANDA KUMAR, S/O V.S.R.MOHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 65 BUSINESS, SMT.SREE REKHA, D/O. V. SATYANANDA KUMAR, AGED EMPLOYEE, BOTH RESIDENTS OF FLAT NO. 401, SRI SAIRAM RESIDENCY, DOOR NO. 11-15-5, ATCHUTARAMAYYA STREET, RAMARAOPETA, KAKINADA - 533004. 2 ADDRESS ALSO AT 651, DEAUVILLE DR 8, MONROVILLEE, ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.J.AZAD CHENDRA SHEKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA VELAGANDULA VIVEK, SON OF PROF.V. ANANDAM, EMPLOYEE, R/O. H.NO.L-L-652/B, GANDHINAGAR, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE, INDIA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 10853, KINGSFORD LANE, FRISCO, TEXAS, USA,75035 (REP. BY NATURAL FATHER AND GPA ...PETITIONER V.SATYANANDA KUMAR, S/O V.S.R.MOHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 65 SMT.SREE REKHA, D/O. V. SATYANANDA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT EMPLOYEE, BOTH RESIDENTS OF FLAT NO. 401, 5, ATCHUTARAMAYYA 2 ADDRESS ALSO AT 651, DEAUVILLE DR 8, MONROVILLEE, PONDENT(S): 2 The Court made the following Order: The present Revision Petition has been preferred against the order dated 18.06.2025 in I.A.No.214 of 2025 in O.S.No.19 of 2020 on the file of the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. 2. The petitioner / plaintiff filed the said suit for declaration, possession and mandatory injunction in respect of the plaint schedule properties against the respondents / defendants. In the suit, the respondents/ defendants filed their written statement. 3. The petitioner filed the above mentioned I.A., under Order VII Rule 14 r/w Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to call for the Account statement of the 1st respondent / defendant from State Bank of India, Yanam Branch and H.D.F.C. Bank, Kakinada Branch for the periods from 03.04.2012 to 15.10.2015 and 01.12.2010 and 30.12.2020 respectively. The respondents filed their counter and resisted the said application. The learned Senior Civil Judge after considering the matter, dismissed the said I.A. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff made submissions to impress upon the Court that the reopening of the case for further examination of the plaintiff and calling for the statements of accounts is necessitated in the circumstances which are elaborated in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., in question. He submits that the petitioner / plaintiff filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and at the time of recording his evidence, the learned Advocate Commissioner marked the entire bank statement containing 152 3 pages as Ex.A3, the petitioner was under the impression that all the documents were marked in one go, but during the course of arguments it was noted that the bank statements of the petitioner / plaintiff relating to Chase Bank and Capital One bank were not marked. Be that as it may. He submits that the copies of the bank statements of the 1st respondent were obtained from the police in a criminal case and in those circumstances, the statements of accounts of the 1st respondent are sought to be called for. He submits that the said statements are very much essential and without considering the matter in the proper perspective, the learned Trial Court went wrong in dismissing the application. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks to allow the Revision Petition. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents made submissions to sustain the order under challenge. He submits that the petitioner / plaintiff filed a separate application seeking to recall him and got marked the statements of his bank accounts which were already available on record, but not marked by oversight. In such circumstances, more particularly when the petitioner / plaintiff has to substantiate his case with reference to the pleadings and the stand taken in the plaint, no prejudice would be caused, as rightly observed by the learned Trial Court, even if the statement of account of the respondent / defendant is not called for. He accordingly seeks dismissal of the Revision Petition as there are no merits in the same. 6. This Court has considered the submissions made. Perused the material on record. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the only point 4 that arises for adjudication is whether the order under challenge warrants interference by this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case? 7. At the outset, it may be pertinent to note that the petitioner apart from filing the application in question I.A.No.214 of 2025, appears to have filed I.A.Nos.212 and 213 of 2025 seeking to reopen the petitioner’s side evidence by recalling P.W.1. The purpose of recalling P.W.1 appears to be for marking of the statements of bank accounts which are already available on record, even according to the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., but somehow not marked. Be that as it may. From a reading of the order under challenge it would appear that the said I.As., were allowed and the bank statements of the petitioner / plaintiff were duly marked. In such circumstances, if the petitioner / plaintiff seek to establish the transfer of monies from his account to that of the respondent/s, the said accounts are sufficient and the necessity to call for the statements of accounts of the respondent/s does not arise. Further, from a reading of the counter filed by the respondents in the said I.A., it would appear that the arguments of both sides are closed and from a reading of the impugned order, it appears that the petitioner / plaintiff took time for submitting written arguments and at that stage, filed the I.A., calling for the bank statements of accounts for the periods mentioned supra, and the learned Trial Court had rightly rejected the same by assigning the cogent reasons. 8. 8. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court see no illegality or perversity much less jurisdictional error in the order under challenge 5 warranting exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the point is answered. 9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, all pending applications shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA BLV Dt. 23.09.2025 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA C.R.P. No: 1638 of 2025 (Per Ninala Jayasurya, J) Date: 23.09.2025 BLV