APHC010568612025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2882 OF 2025 Between: 1. ANKURI RASOOL BEE, W/o Ankuri Dastagiri, Aged 38 years, R/o D/o 20/219 Modameedi Village, Proddatur Town Mandal, YSR District. ...Petitioner AND 1. NIL, Nil ...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 to direct the Hon'ble II Additional District Judge, Kadapa, at Proddatur to number the lA Sr No. 4962/2025, dated 14-10-2025, and allow the lA so that the document number in the Judgment/order can be amended in the interest of Justice and as per the orders in Peethani Suryanarayana and another Vs. Repaka Venkata Ramana Krishore and others passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Counsel for the Petitioner: HARI BABU MAGULURI Counsel for the Respondent SRK, J CRP No.2882 of 2025 2 The Court made the following ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed assailing the return endorsement dated 14.10.2025 made in IA(SR) No.4962 of 2025 in GOP No.2 of 2025 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Kadapa, at Proddatur. 2. Petitioner is mother of the minor girl namely Ankuri Parin. Petitioner filed GOP No.2 of 2025 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Kadapa, under Sections 10 and 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act, seeking to appoint her as guardian to her minor daughter Ankuri Parin and permit her to sell the petition schedule property and deposit the same in the name of her minor daughter in a Nationalized Bank and to use only the interest for the welfare of the minor daughter. 3. Case of the petitioner is that she purchased petition schedule property viz. vacant site, from its lawful owner through a registered sale deed, vide document No.1810 of 2014, dated 25.03.2014. The husband of the petitioner divorced her as per Muslim Shariat. Pursuant to the same, out of love and affection, petitioner gifted the said vacant site to her minor child, vide registered settlement deed bearing document No.343 of 2017, dated 27.01.2017, by appointing herself as guardian to the minor child. Later, petitioner with her own funds and borrowing money of Rs.10,00,000/- from her well wishers and relatives for interest at 18% p.a., constructed a building with upstairs in the vacant site and continued as legal guardian to minor child and was in possession and enjoyment of the same without any hindrance or SRK, J CRP No.2882 of 2025 3 objection from anybody. The further case of the petitioner is that, as it was difficult for her to fulfill the necessities of her growing daughter as she is a normal housewife without any financial basis and also there is a burden on her to repay the interest on the borrowing amount, she intends to sell the petition schedule property for the purpose of graduation of her minor daughter. Hence, she filed the present case seeking to appoint her as natural guardian and permit her to sell the petition schedule property for the welfare of her minor daughter Ankuri Parin. 4. By an order dated 27.03.2025, learned II Additional District Judge, Proddatur, allowed the said GOP No.2 of 2025 declaring the petitioner as guardian on behalf of minor/Ankuri Parin and permitted the petitioner to sell the petition schedule property for the welfare of the minor with a condition to deposit the share of minor in sale proceeds in any Nationalized Bank in the name of minor by name Ankuri Parin, till the minor attains the age of majority and on condition that she shall execute an administration bond before sale of the property. However, the guardian of the minor was permitted to withdraw the interest accrued thereon yearly for the welfare of the minor. 5. Pursuant to the said order, petitioner filed IA (SR) No.4962 of 2025 in GOP No.2 of 2025, stating that due to inadvertence, the document number of Ex.P2 was wrongly shown as 343/2017 instead of showing it as 316/2017 in the petition and the same mistake was carried forward in the order dated 27.03.2025 passed in GOP No.2 of 2025 showing the document number as SRK, J CRP No.2882 of 2025 4 343/2017 instead of 316/2017 and if the said mistake is not rectified, the order passed in her favour would not be fructified and prayed to permit her to amend the same in the petition and correct it in the order dated 27.03.2025. According to her, the said mistake was neither wilful nor wanton, but only due to typographical mistake. The learned II Additional District Judge, vide endorsement dated 14.10.2025, returned the said IA with an objection as to how the petition is maintainable under law after disposal of the case. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present CRP. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 7. It is not in dispute that Guardians and Wards O.P.No.2 of 2025 filed by the petitioner was allowed vide Order dated 27.03.2025 by the learned II Additional District Judge, after enquiry, declaring the petitioner as natural guardian to the minor and permitted her to sell the petition schedule property, upon certain conditions. Now, it is the grievance of the petitioner that document number of Ex.P2-registered settlement deed dated 27.01.2017, is wrongly mentioned in the G.O.P. as ‘343/2017’, instead of ‘316/2017’, and the said mistaken number is reflected in the Order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judgein paragraph No.2. A perusal of the Order dated 27.3.2025 goes to show that in paragraph No.2, which is brief averments of the petition, the document number is mentioned as ‘343/2017’, but in the ‘Appendix of evidence’, number of the said SRK, J CRP No.2882 of 2025 5 document, which is marked as Ex.P2, is mentioned as ‘316/2017’. Therefore, it appears to be a typographical mistake. But, a copy of the said document is not filed before this Court, and therefore, this Court is handicapped to know whether the document number of the document marked as Ex.P2, is ‘316/2017’ or ‘343/2017’. Even, if any document is filed, this Court would not be in a position to conduct a roving enquiry into the matter. Since the document is in the custody of the trial Court and since it is a typographical mistake, it is apt for the trial Court to look into the same and correct the mistake, if any. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to represent IA (SR) No.4962 of 2025 before the learned II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, and on such representation, the learned II Additional District Judge is directed to conduct an enquiry to know whether the number of the document marked as Ex.P2 is ‘343/2017’ or ‘316/2017’ and pass appropriate orders on the petition in IA (SR) No.4962 of 2025, in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall also stand closed. ________________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J. Date:31.10.2025 Nsr SRK, J CRP No.2882 of 2025 6 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2882 of 2025 Date:31.10.2025 Nsr