\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2199 OF 2n?d Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the docket order dated 04.07.2024 in I.A.No. 1144/2023 in O.S.No. 1166/2017 on the file of the Court of the VII Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. Between: Aryasomayajala Venkata Giri, S/o. Late Uma Maheswara Rao, Hindu years, Employee in L & T resident of Bangalore, Karnataka State age 55 ...PETITIONER AND s V L N Swamy Devasthanam,' Rep its Executive Officer Simhachaiam Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 STAY of all further proceedings in O.S.No. 1166/2017 on the file of Court of the VII Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Visakhapatnam, pending disposer of the C.R.P. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. S V R SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondents: SRI KAPPERA KOTESWARA RAO SC FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following ORDER: APHC010397102024 f IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2199/2024 ■k Between: Aryasomayajala Venkata Giri ...PETITIONER AND S V L N Swamy Devasthanam Counsel for the Petitioner: ...RESPONDENT 1. S V R SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent: 1. KAPPERA KOTESWARA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER;- The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Docket Order dated 04.07.2024 in I.A.No.1144 of 2023 in O.S.No.1166 of 2017 on the file of the VII Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam, seeking relaxation of the conditions in I.A.No.1144 of 2023 vide order dated 08.05.2024. i 2 This Court vide order dated 27.09.2024 issued notice before 2. admission to the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner was also permitted to take out personal notice to the respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner filed a Memo to the effect that the proof of service was filed on the respondent. On 21.02.2025, this Court directed the Registry to print the name of Standing Counsel for Sri S.V.L.N. Swamy Devasthanam. Today Sri Kappera Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments appeared in the case and stated that there is no Standing Counsel for the respondent Devasthanam. Though notice is served on the respondents, no appearance is entered. 3. Heard Sri S.V.R.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The learned Judge while allowing the application filed for reopening of the evidence imposed the following conditions. The said conditions are: 1) The Plaintiff shall pay costs of Rs.500/- to the Defendant on the next date. 2) The Plaintiff shall file the chief-examination affidavits of all the witnesses and produce the witnesses on the next date. 3) The Plaintiff shall furnish copies of chief-examination affidavit of all the witnesses to the other side within two weeks from today. If the Plaintiff 3 fails to fulfill any of the conditions above this petition shall stands ^ dismissed. The petitioner filed an application seeking relaxation of the conditions on the ground that he is not a resident of the town and resides at Bangalore on his professional work. And expressed difficulty to get all the witnesses before the Court, in terms of the conditions, imposed by the court. He expressing his difficulty in complying the conditions of the Court sought for relaxation of the conditions. The learned Judge however dismissed the application on the ground that the reasons assigned by the petitioner to relax conditions that were imposed is not justifiable. The only difficulty expressed by the petitiorier is that he is residing at Bangalore. The relief sought in the application is for relaxing the conditions in I.A.No. 1144 of 2023. The observation of the learned Judge in saying so, may not be found fault with having regard to the averments made in the petition, further the petitioner has also paid costs imposed by the learned trial Judge. Thus complied with one of the conditions imposed. 5. 6. Thus in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court deems it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner to seek for extension of time that was granted on 08.05.2024. Having regard to the contentions advanced, this Court is of the view that since the application filed by the petitioner for reopening and receive the relevant documents has been allowed, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a necessary application seeking extension of time that was granted on 08.05.2024. On filing of such an application, the 4 learned Judge shall dispose of the same after affording opportunity to the respondent/defendant. It is stated that the suit is coming up for hearing, the learned Judge is directed to decide the application first and then proceed to adjudicate the issues raised in the suit and dispose of the suit in O.S.No.1166 of 2017 in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to the respective parties. 1 7. With the above observations, the 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. SD/- K. KASI RAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, i # 1. The VII Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2. One CC to SRI. S V R SUBRAHMANYAM, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. KAPPERA KOTESWARA RAO, SC FOR ENDOWMENTS [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies PRK HIGH COURT DATED:28/02/2025 ORDER CRP.No.2199 of 2024 *NDiS^ 5 2 7 MAR 2025 . Current Section . DISPOSING OF THE CRP, WITHOUT COSTS