r A APHC010453352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2190 OF 2025 Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 12.08.2025 passed in I.A.No.146 of 2025 in O.S.No.147 of 2012 on the file of the Hon'ble Civil Judge (Senior Division), Repalle, Guntur District. Between: 1. Gudirnella Rama Krishna, S/o. Tirumala Lakshmi Narasimhacharyulu, aged about 48 years, R/o. near Gayatri Temple, Gayatri Nagar, Guntur. 2. Gudirnella Hari Ramanujam Narasimhacharyulu, aged about 45 years, R/o. near Gayatri Temple S/o. Tirumala Lakshmi Gayatri Nagar, Guntur. 3. Gudirnella Krishnaveni, D/o. Tirumala Lakshmi Narasimhacharyu lu, aged about 43 years, R/o. near Gayatri Temple, Gayatri Nagar, Guntur. ...Petitioners/Respondents/Defendants AND Vedala Antarvedi @ Antravedi Narasimhacharyulu, S/o. Late. Ramanujacharyulu, aged 75 years. Cultivation; Peddavaram Village, Nagaram Mandal, Guntur District. ...Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings of the suit in O.S.No.147 of 2012 on the file of the Hon’ble Civil Judge (Senior Division), Repalle, Guntur District. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Karanki Yaswanth, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent: - The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010453352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3207] THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2190/2025 Between: 1.GUDIMELLA RAMA KRISHNA, S/O. TIRUMALA NARASIMHACHARYULU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/0. NEAR GAYATRI TEMPLE, GAYATRI NAGAR, GUNTUR. LAKSHMI 2.GUDIMELLA HARI RAMANUJAM,, S/O. TIRUMALA LAKSHMI NARASIMHACHARYULU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. R/0. NEAR GAYATRI TEMPLE. GAYATRI NAGAR, GUNTUR. D/0. TIRUMALA LAKSHMI 3.GUDIMELLA KRISHNAVENt NARASIMHACHARYULU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/0. NEAR GAYATRI TEMPLE, GAYATRI NAGAR, GUNTUR. 1 > ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.VEDALA ANTARVEDI ANTRAVEDI NARASIMHACHARYULU, S/o. Late. Ramanujacharyutu, aged 75 years. Cultivation, Peddavaram Village, Nagaram Mandal, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT 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 allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting-aside the order dt.12.08.2025 passed in I.A.No.146 of 2025 in O.S.No.147 of 2012 on the file of the Hon'ble Civil Judge (Senior Division), Repalle, Guntur District in the interest of justice and pass 2 % 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 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. KARAN Kl YASWANTH Counsel for the Respondent: \ 1. The Court made the following: 3 SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE pPWi.qinN PETITION NO.2190 OF 2025 CIVIL ORDERt- assailing the order, the file of has been filed Civil Revision Petition This dated 12.08.2025 in Civil Judge(Senior Division), in :.A.No.146 of 2025 in O.S.No.147 of 2012 on Repalle (for short ‘the trial Court'). the in the suit. The suit is filed in the year -examination of P.W.1. At O.S.No.147 of of Civil Rules of Practice to Petitioners are defendants in 2. of title and it is posted for cross filed l.A.No.146 of 2025 in 2012 for declaration that time, the respondent/plaintiff 2012 under Section permit him to amend the plaint. 151 of C.P.C and Rule 28 counter along with the the amendment petition, of both the whether the petitioner/plaintiff / defendant filed The 1®^ petitioner/1 3. defendant Nos.2 and 3 resisting considering the arguments adoption memo of 4. The Trial Court after IS has framed an issue that learned counsels for amendment of the plaint as prayed for?". entitled No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on 5.' behalf of either side. X ...J, i 4 After hearing both sides, the Trial Court came to an opinion that the plaintiff/respondent can withdraw any relief of the suit at any point of time and the other averments made in the counter cannot be decided in that petition. The Trial Court also opined that the amendment will not change the nature of the suit and accordingly to give opportunity to the respondent herein, allowed the said petition on payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- to the petitioners herein and directed the respondent herein to make necessary amendments in 6. the plaint. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Trial 7. Court erred in allowing the amendment petition without there being any valid reason or ground, as such, the said petition is liable to be set aside. He further contends that as P.W.1 was partly cross-examined and the matter was posted for further cross-examination of P.W.1, allowing the amendment petition at that stage is erroneous. The learned counsel further submits that the trial Court ought to have seen that there is a clear admission by the respondent/plaintiff in his pleading with regard to the possession of the petitioners/defendants over the suit schedule property by virtue of a registered gift deed and under the guise of amendment of pleadings, the respondent/plaintiff is trying to cover up his lacunae and latches. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the order of the Trial Court in allowing the amendment petition is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and on careful examination of the material available on record, it 8. 5 earHer occasion, the respondent/plaintiff has filed l.A.No.116 was appears that on of 2019 in O.S.No.147 of 2012 for amendment of the plaint and the same dismissed by the trial Court. Thereafter, this Court by an order, dated 09.05.2023 in C.R.P.No.1187 of 2019 has remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration. In the light of the said order, the amendment r - • / the trial Court and after hearing both sides petition has been considered by opinion that the proposed the nature of the suit. Hence, the said petition is and examining the material on record came to an amendment will not change allowed. Admittedly, the suit is posted for cross-examination of P.W.1. 9. Considering the reasons stated in the order of the trial Court while allowing the amendment petition i.e., l.A.No.146 of 2025 in O.S.No.147 of that there is no infirmity or 2012, this Court is of the considered opinion the order passed by the trial Court in allowing the amendment irregularity in petition with a reasoned order. the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. In view of the same 10. There shall be no order as to costs. shall stand closed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this case Sd/- G HELANAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1, The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Repalle, Guntur District. High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Karanki Yaswanth, Advocate [OPUC] 2. The Section Officer, VR Section, 3. One CC to Sri 4. Two CD Copies GPC A HIGH COURT DATED: 04/09/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 2190 OF 2025 ov g 15 SEP 2025 m C3 ^ . Current Seciion 'ky DISMISSING THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION