APHC010454632025 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 Nos: 2196 OF 2025 AND 2197 OF 2025 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 2196 OF 2025 Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 23.06.2025 made in I.A.No. 41 of 2025 in O.S. No. 381 of 2016 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri, Guntur. Between: Gunturu Bhaskar Rao, S/o. Koteswara Rao, aged about 32 years, R/o. DjNo. 4-22-98/B, Koritepadu, Guntur. ...PETITIONER/PETITIONER/8^“ PLANTIFF AND 1. Venigalla Surya Prakasa Rao (Died). Muvva Koteswara Rao, S/o Varadaiah, Aged about 58 years, R/o D.No. 5-112, Neerukonda Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 2. 3. Kolavennu Naga Ratnam Kolavennu Siva Kolavennu Ramesh Kolavennu Narasimha Rao Kolavennu Vajram Jammula Padma 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. / / 9. Marripudi Venkata Ramana lO.Kolavennu Nagendram H.Kolavennu Srinu 12.Kolavennu Masthanamma 13.Ghantasala Nirmala 14.Kambala Padmavathi 15. Kolavennu Koteswara Rao 16.Kolavennu Hanumantha Rao 17.Valiveti Siva Kumari 18. Kolavennu Nageswara Rao 19. Kolavennu Prasad 20.Neelam Samrajyam 21 .Palaparthi Lakshmithirupathamma 22.Thorati Lakshmi 23.Valiveti Prameela 24.Ullaganti Sridevi f (Respondents 3 to 24 not necessary parties in this revision) ...RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS 1 TO 7 & 8 TO 23 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 O.S.No.381 of 2016 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri, Guntur District pending disposal of the above revision. Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the Respondents : - : SRI G.V.S.MEHAR KUMAR, ADVOCATE APHC010454702025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 0J50 CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 2196 OF 2025 AND 2197 OF 2025 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 2197 OF 2025 Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 23.06.2025 made in I.A.No. 42 of 2025 in O.S. No. 381 of 2016 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri, Guntur. Bet>Areen: Gunturu Bhaskar Rao, S/o. Koteswara Rao, aged about 32 years, R/o. D.No. 4-22-98/B, Koritepadu, Guntur. ...PETITIONER/PETITIONER/8^” PLANTIFF AND 1. Venigalla Surya Prakasa Rao (Died). 2. Muvva Koteswara Rao, S/o Varadaiah, Aged about 58 years, R/o D.No. 5^112, Neerukonda Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 3. Kolavennu Naga Ratnam 4. Kolavennu Siva 5. Kolavennu Ramesh 6. Kolavennu Narasimha Rao 7. Kolavennu Vajram 8. Jammula Padma 9. Marripudi Venkata Ramana 10. Kolavennu Nagendram 11. Kolavennu Srinu 12. Kolavennu Masthanamma 13.Ghantasala Nirmala 14.Kambala Padmavathi 15.Kolavennu Koteswara Rao 16.Kolavennu Hanumantha Rao 17.Valiveti Siva Kumari 18.Kolavennu Nageswara Rao 19.Kolavennu Prasad 20.Neelam Samrajyam 21. Palaparthi Lakshmithirupathamma 22.Thorati Lakshmi 23.Valiveti Prameela 24.Ullaganti Sridevi (Respondents 3 to 24 not necessary parties in this revision) ...RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS 1 TO 7 & 8 TO 23 ; /■ K 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 in O.S.No.381 of 2016 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri, Guntur District pending disposal of the above revision. : SRI G.V.S.MEHAR KUMAR, ADVOCATE Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the Respondents : -- The Court made the following ORDER : 1 honourable SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE PETITION NQs.2196 AND 2197 OF 2025 / r.ivil. REVISION ;/ r nnMMON ORDER:- have been filed against the common of 2025 and l.A.No.42 of 2025 in of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), These Civil Revision Petitions order, dated 23.06.2025 in I.A.No.41 O.S.No.381 of 2016 on the file Mangalagiri. Petitioner herein is Plaintiff No.8 in the suit filed for declaration of «,e. The plaintiffs in the suit filed a petition vide I.A.No.41 of 2025 seeRing to re-open the evidence of the plaintiffs for the purpose of summoning the Tahsildar. Mangalagiri for producing the relevant file and to depose on behalf of the plaintiffs. l.A.No.42 of 2025 is filed seeking to summon the Tahsildar, Mangalagiri Mandal to produce the record and to give evidence with regard to lodging criminal complaint in Crime No.40 of 2016, dated 26.02.2016 before the Mangalagiri Rural Police Station against the 2"'' defendant in the suit. 2. nd respondent herein filed counter refuting the The 2"^ defendant/2 request made by the plaintiffs in two Interlocutory Applications. 3. The case of the petitioner herein is that the suit schedule property Kolavennu Peraiah, S/o.Kotaiah, his great grandfather of registered Sale Deed No.683, dated 23.05.1916. They came to 4. was purchased by one by virtue V 2 know that the 2"^^ respondent had sold the suit schedule property to r' respondent under registered sale deed No.5874, dated 12.08.2015. As per the recitals of the said document, the property was the ancestral property of the 2""' respondent and he had pattadar passbook and land ownership title deed book issued by Mangalagiri Revenue authority in his favour. But. originally the property was in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. As per the plaintiff/petitioner, the sale deed between Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is sham and collusive. Having knowledge about the same, the plaintiffs have lodged a complaint before the Tahsildar. Mangalagiri and they have also made several representations to the Tahsildar. Mangalagiri. Mangalagiri lodged a criminal complaint against the 2"'* Mangalagiri Rural Police Station and Finally, the Tahsildar, respondent before the a case in Crime No.40 of 2016 dated 25.02.2016 under Sections 420, 468, 471 of then Tahsildar, Mangalagiri IPC was registered. The gave statement that the 2"^' respondent had fabricated and concocted the pattadar passbook, land ownership rights book concerned authorities in connivance with by forging the signatures of the Village Revenue Officers. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if respondent entered into witness box, all these facts in his evidence. But the 2'^'^ respondent had nd the 2 would have come to light not chosen to adduce evidence on his behalf and thereby the evidence on behalf of the respondents was closed. As such, the plaintiffs lost the any opportunity to cross-examine the 2 respondent. Under those circumstances as the plaintiffs have no other 3 the Tahsildar. Mangalagiri to give evidence on the defendant, the plaintiffs behalf of the plaintiffs to summon option except to summon fact of lodging prayed to re-open Tahsildar, Mangalagiri to produce the relevant file and to give evidence. nd criminal complaint against the 2 / the evidence on i affidavit filed by the 2"- defendantf2'«‘ respondent in averred that the plaintiffs got knovnledge about the alleged No.40 of 2016 of Mangalagiri Rural Police Station and from the concerned In the counter 6. the trial Court it is case details in Crime ^ ■ they got opportunity to obtain certified copies of the same from the concerned police. Hence, they ought to have produce the behalf of the Court or at the time of adducing evidence on the proceedings, the plaintiffs by abusing with false, baseless and before the Court same plaintiffs. But, with a view to drag on of law got filed the present petitions the process vexatious allegations for which they are not entitled. of the respective parties, the of the FIR along with the remand EX.A4, no useful Having considered the contentions 7. trial Court opined that as the certified copy report of the 2"“ accused^"'' defendant was got marked as wouid be served in summoning the present Tahsildar, Mangalagiri purpose Rural. Accordingly relief and vide Common order, dated 23 the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed. not entitled for any the trial Court held that the plaintiffs are (2) Interlocutory Applications, accordingly, dismissed the two .06.2025. Aggrieved by the said common order. -x'S 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court erroneously dismissed the Interlocutory Applications filed by the plaintiffs to reopen the plaintiffs’ evidence and to summon the Tahsildar, Mangalagiri for production of documents pertaining to the suit schedule property without any valid reasons. The learned counsel further contends that the main purpose of summoning the Tahsildar is to give evidence with regard to lodging criminal complaint in Crime No.40 of 2016 of Mangalagiri Rural Police Station as he is the author of the said complaint. In view of the 8. non-examination of the witness on behalf of the respondents/defendants, the only opportunity left to the plaintiffs to prove Ex.A4 is by examining the Tahsildar, Mangalagiri as witness on behalf of them. He further contends that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents if the Tahsildar, Mangalagiri is examined and prayed to set aside the common order, dated 23.06.2025 passed in I.A.No.41 of 2025 and l.A.No.42 of 2025 in O.S.No.381 of 2016. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the 9. petitioner and upon careful examination of the material available on record, it is an admitted fact that the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed on 15.10.2024 and defendant’s side evidence was closed as ‘no evidence’ on 23.12.2024. Since then, the matter underwent several adjournments till 21.01.2025 and number of conditional orders were imposed. In view of the fact that the F.I.R nd lodged by the Mangalagiri Rural police in Crime No.40 of 2016 against the 2 respondent/2^'^ defendant basing on the complaint made by the then Tahsildar, Mangalagiri was got marked as Ex.A4, in our considered view no 5 would be served by summoning the present Tahsildar, i Rural. The same view was expressed by the trial Court while useful purpose Mangalagiri dismissing the two (02) Interlocutory applications. 1 ./ r considered view, there is no In view of the same, in our 10. order passed by the learned trial Court irregularity or infirmity in the common dismissing the two (02) Interlocutory Applications and this Court is not inclined interfere into the said common order. to dismissed. There the Civil Revision Petitions are 11. Accordingly shall be no order as to costs. shall stand , in these cases Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any closed. SD/- M.SR1N1VAS { ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Division), Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 1. The Principal Civil Judge (Junior 2. One CC to Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh at 3. The Section Officer, VR Section Amaravathi 4. Two CD Copies GPC TAC HIGH COURT DATED: 04/09/2025 ORDER CRP Nos. 2196 OF 2025 & 2197 OF 2025 OFANd^;^ I t 5 SEP 2025 Current Section ov DISMISSING THESE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS