APHC010364032025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1770/2025 Between: 1. SMT SUPRAJA BORTHWICK, W/O RICHARD BORTHWICK, 4-69-18, LAWSONS BAY COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER AND 1. FRANK JOSEPH BORTHWICK, S/O CYRIL JOSEPH BORTHWICK, DR. NO. 192 2C CROSS, DOMLUR, 2ND STAGE, BANGLORE. 2. AARAON BORTHWICK, S/O RICHARD BORTHWICK, R/O 4-69-18, LAWSONS BAY COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. RICHARD BORTHWICK, S/O FRANK JOSEPH BORTHWICK, HIS LAST KNOWN ADDRESS IS R/O 4-69-18 LAWSONS BAY COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...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 topleased to prays this Honble Court to allow the instant Revision Petition by setting aside the docket order dated 02.07.2025 passed in O.S. No. 306 of 2022 on the file of Honble VI AddI Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam and pass 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 pleased to dispense with the Certified copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble VI AddI Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam dated 02.07.2025 in O.S. No. 306 of 2022 and pass IA NO: 2 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 a stay on all further proceedings in in O.S. No. 306 of 2022 on the file of Hon'ble VI AddI Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SINGAMSETTY V.M. SANKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V V RAVI PRASAD 3 The Court made the following Order: The 1st respondent herein had filed O.S.No.306 of 2022, in the Court of VI Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Visakhapatnam, for mandatory injunction for directing the appellants herein to leave and vacate the suit schedule property, which is a house said to have been constructed by the 1st respondent. 2. The claim of the 1st respondent was that the property belongs to him and that he had given permissive possession of the property to his son, who is arrayed as the 3rd defendant and to the 1st defendant, who is his daughter-in-law, in the suit. This permissive possession is said to have been given for the purposes of his son and daughter-in-law to live in Visakhapatnam. Thereafter, differences are said to have arisen between the 3rd respondent herein and the petitioner herein. On account of these differences, it appears that the 3rd respondent is not residing in the said house anymore. At that stage, the 1st respondent had filed the aforesaid suit. The petitioner herein had filed a written statement raising various contentions including the contention that the petitioner had expended a huge amount of money to renovate and restore an old house which was effectively constructing a new house; the house should be treated as a “shared household” which would entitle the petitioner to remain in possession under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act; the 3rd respondent, who is a necessary party had not been impleaded and consequently the suit is bad for non-joinder; the 1st respondent cannot seek mandatory injunction and the suit should have been filed as a suit for eviction due to which the suit requires to be dismissed. The petitioner raised various other grounds which have not been enumerated for the purposes of brevity. 3. In the course of the proceedings of the suit, the petitioner filed an application to implead the 3rd respondent as the 3rd defendant in the suit. This application came to be allowed and the 3rd respondent was impleaded as the 4 3rd defendant. However, the 3rd respondent did not file any written statement and stated that he had no written statement to file. 4. The petitioner, on the ground that the 3rd respondent had been impleaded as the 3rd defendant, filed an additional written statement. After filing the additional written statement, the petitioner sought recasting of the issues which had been framed on 29.08.2023. This request was rejected by the Trial Court on 02.07.2025 by way of a docket order containing reasons. 5. The petitioner being aggrieved by this docket order has approached this Court by way of a Civil Revision Petition. 6. Sri S.V. Maruthi Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the refusal to recast the issue causes immense damage to the interest of the petitioner in as much as the additional issues which are sought to be added are necessary for a proper adjudication of the disputes between the 1st respondent and the petitioner herein. He would also contend that the Trial Court, while passing the Order dated 02.07.2025, had made certain observations which effectively shut out the defense of the petitioner. 7. Sri V.V. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would contend that the issues cast, on 29.08.2023, cover all the issues that need to be tried by the Trial Court. He would submit that the additional written statement filed by the petitioner has not raised any grounds which are at variance with the defenses raised in the original written statement. He would further contend that the findings given by the Trial Court, in the Order dated 02.07.2025 are only Prima facie observations and the same would not be binding on the parties or on any of the issues being fore closed. 8. A perusal of the issues framed on 29.08.2023, the written statement filed by the petitioner, the additional written statement filed by the petitioner and the draft issues submitted, on behalf of the petitioner would 5 show that the defenses raised in the additional written statement do not in any manner deviate from the defenses raised in the original written statement nor has the additional written statement raised fresh grounds of the defense which are not available in the original written statement. 9. 9. Apart from this, the issues framed on 28.09.20223 appear to cover the disputes that would arise, for Trial, on account of the plaint and the written statement/additional written statement, filed by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the Order of the Trial Court dated 02.07.2025. 10. However, any observation of the Trial Court, in the Order dated 02.07.2025, shall not be binding nor shall it be used in the course of the Trial or the course of hearing, in the Trial Court. 11. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed. _______________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. Dated: 25.07.2025 BSM 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO C.R.P.No.1770 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Date: 25.07.2025 BSM