APHC010498352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2428/2025 Between: 1. RAGHAVENDRA BOILED RICE MILL,, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, KANTHETI SRI RAJA BABU, S/O. GOPARAL KRISHNAIAH, AGED 67 YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.11-11- 16/2, KAILASH BHAVAN ROAD, CHENCHUPET, TENALI TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. KANTHETI SRI RAJA BABU,, S/O. GOPALA KRISHNAIAH, AGED 67 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.11-11-16/2, KAILASH BHAVAN ROAD, CHENCHUPET, TENALI TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. KANTHETI SWAMA KUMARI,, W/O. SRI RAJA BABU, AGED 65 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO.11-11-16/2, KAILASH BHAVAN ROAD, CHENCHUPET, TENALI TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. NATHANI BALA TRIPURA SUNDARI, W/O. LATE RAMANUJAYYA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. CHENCHUPET, TENALI TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. BANDI SIVAPRIYA, W/O. NAGABHUSHANAM @ NAGABHUSHANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. SRINAGAR COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. NATHANI SRINIVAS, S/O. LATE RAMANUJAYYA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. CHENCHUPET, TENALI TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. NATHANI SUDHAKAR, S/O. LATE RAMANUJAYYA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O. CHENCHUPET, TENALI TOWN AND MANDAL, 2 RRR, J C.R.P.N.2428 of 2025 GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. SRI SAILAKSHMI RICE MILL, REP. BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR TADIPARTHI KRISHNA KUMAR, S/O. PANCHARANGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O. 21-1-31, JANDHYALAVARISTREET, RAMALINGESWARAPET, TENALI TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6. PAMULAPATI MALLIKARJUNA PRASAD, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC.PROPERTIES, 17-4-355, 4/1, R/O. VIDHYA NAGAR, GUNTUR CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toBeing aggrieved by the Docket Order dt. 12.09.2025 passed in O.S No. 35 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali IA 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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 35 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali, pending disposal of the main CRP and to pass IA NO: 2 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 may be pleased to vacate the interim stay order dated 19-09-2025 granted in I.A No. 1 of 2025 in CRP. No. 2428 of 2025 on the file of this Hon' ble Court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PANCHAGNULA RISHYENDRA SAI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N SRIRAM MURTHY 3 RRR, J C.R.P.N.2428 of 2025 The Court made the following order: The respondents herein had moved O.S.No.35 of 2019 before the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali, for dissolution of the 1st petitioner firm and for retention of accounts and for other specific reliefs. In the course of the trial in the suit, the 4th plaintiff was sought to be examined as a 1st witness. The petitioners herein, who are the defendants in the suit, objected to the cross-examination of the 4th plaintiff on the ground that the 3rd plaintiff would have to be cross-examined before the 4th plaintiff can be cross- examined. This contention of the petitioners was rejected by the Trial Court, by an order, dated 12.09.2025. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have approached this Court, by way of the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. In view of the Judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Shaik Rafath Begum vs. T.V.R. Anjaneyulu (died) per LRs. And Ors.1 and the Judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in its order, dated 23.12.2015, in the case of Y. Prabhakara Reddy vs. K. Pramod Kumar Reddy, it would be open to the plaintiffs to examine any one of the plaintiffs as 1st witness and there cannot be any specific direction that plaintiffs have to be examined in the order in which they are arrayed in the plaint. 1 2006 (6) ALD 769 4 RRR, J C.R.P.N.2428 of 2025 4. In the present case, both plaintiffs 3 & 4 are said to be the partners of 1st defendant firm. In such a situation, there cannot be any objection as to the sequence in which the plaintiffs are examined as witnesses. 5. In that view of the matter, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J 07.11.2025 MJA 5 RRR, J C.R.P.N.2428 of 2025 270 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2428/2025 07.11.2025 MJA