4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE 4^ # /■' V) PRESENT // a :<r- THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2141 OF 2022 Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2015 in I.A.No.393 of 2015 in O.S.No.64 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kothapet, East Godavari District. Between: Kinjarapu Jayabharathi, w/o Late Kannam Naidu Aged about 60 Household duties, Resident of Door No. 12-4-26(L), Madhuranagar colony Srikakulam town and district years ...Petitioner/Defendant AND 1. Yadam Ramana Muthy (died), 2. Yadam Lakshmi, w/o Late Ramana Murthy Aged about 56 years. House wife r/o Door No. 12-10-13, Medara Street, Near Old Bus stand, Srikakulam Srikakulam district 3. Yadam Bhagyaraj, S/o Late Ramana Murthy, Aged about 36 years, r/o Door No. 12-10-13, Medara Street, Near Old Bus stand, Srikakulam Srikakulam district 4. Yadam Naveen, s/o Late Ramana Murthy, Aged about 35 years, r/o Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam 5. Ari Lavanya, w/o Bhaskara Rao, Aged about 35 years, r/ o Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam 6. Grandhi Deepthi, w/o Rama Rao, Aged about 38 years, Medara Veedhi Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram district ...Respondents/Plaintiffs lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased leased to suspend the order of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam passed in I.A.No.131 of 2022 in O.S.No.28 of 2014 dated 28.06.2022 pending disposal of the Revision petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VINOD KUMAR TARLADA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI HARINATH REDDY SOMA The Court made the following Order: APHC010557942022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] ?L-= MONDAY-,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2141/2022 Between: ...PETITIONER Kinjarapu Jayabharathi AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Yadam Ramana Muthy Died and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VINOD KUMAR.TARLADA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. HARINATH REDDY SOMA 2. The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2141 of 2022 ORDER: The present civil revision petition is filed questioning the order dated 28.06.2022 in I.A.No.131 of 2022 in O.S.No.28 of 2014 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. Petitioner is the defendant. The suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the schedule property. As per the plaint, defendant is the owner of the schedule property. The said property was leased out to the 1®' plaintiff on 12.06.2008 for a monthly rent of Rs.3,500/- and refundable advance of Rs.50,000/- was given and a lease deed was executed on 12.06.2008 to that effect. Thereafter, the schedule property was again taken by the 1®* plaintiff on lease for a period of five years from 22.10.2013 agreeing to pay monthly rent of Rs.3,500/-. 2. 3. While so, the 1®* plaintiff used to run Kalyana Mandapam in the schedule premises in the name “S.V.R.Murthy Kalyana Mandapam” and marriages used to be performed in the said premises. As the defendant was intending to sell away the property to third parties and was proclaiming to take over possession of schedule property, the suit was filed for permanent injunction. A written statement was filed disputing the claim of the 1^^ plaintiff. // 2 4. In the course of suit, an application i.e. I.A.No.131 of 2022 was filed seeking to introduce an alternative relief of refund of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the defendant. As per the amended application, it was stated that the defendant had paid Rs. 5,00,000/- at the time of execution of lease deed dated 22.10.2013 as mentioned in the lease deed and in the legal registered notice dated 21.03.2013 and therefore sought for amendment of plaint and for the alternative reliefs. Though this application was opposed by the Petitioner, the trial Court allowed the said application. Hence, this revision petition is filed. 5. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the Respondents. 6. As the suit is yet to be proceeded with, the alternative relief sought by the Petitioners/Respondents would not change the nature of the suit as the nature of suit is dependent on the primary relief sought. The suit being for permanent injunction, the alternative relief that is sought by the plaintiffs cannot be said to be prejudicial to the defendant considering the nature of defence taken in the written statement. one In the written statement, the defendant had denied the execution of the lease deed and therefore the amendment is not going to alter their defence nor cause prejudice. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. 7. The civil revision petition is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. 3 As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ^ SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 5. Three CD Copies sree HIGH COURT DATED:20/01/2025 ORDER CRP.No.2141 of 2022 X 12 MAR 2025 ^ . Curreni deciion w DISMISSING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS