APHC010587982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Between: 1. MOHAMMED JAHINDEER SHAALI, S/O LATE SHAIK MADINA AGED 45 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 13 VISAKHAPATNAM,VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2. SMT. RESHMA, W/O MOHAMMED JAHINDEER SHAALI AGED 44 YEARS R/O D.NO. 13 VISAKHAPATNAM. VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 1. BUDHA BURIGI NAIDU, S/O LATE APPANNA AGED 65 YEARS OCC BUSINESS R/O D.NO.1 VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2. ADARI RAMA CHANDRA RAO, S/O YEARS OCC BUSINESS R/O 14 ANAKAPALE, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, pleased topleased to set aside the Order dt. 28 IA.no.537/2025 in OS.no.50/2021 on the file of learned II Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Visakhapatnam and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3026/2025 MOHAMMED JAHINDEER SHAALI, S/O LATE SHAIK MADINA AGED 45 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 13-24-5 JAGADAMBA JUNCTION AREA VISAKHAPATNAM,VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. SMT. RESHMA, W/O MOHAMMED JAHINDEER SHAALI AGED 44 YEARS R/O D.NO. 13-24-5, JAGADAMBA JUNCTION AREA, VISAKHAPATNAM. VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND BUDHA BURIGI NAIDU, S/O LATE APPANNA AGED 65 YEARS OCC BUSINESS R/O D.NO.1-72, GAVARAPALEM, ANAKAPALE, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ADARI RAMA CHANDRA RAO, S/O ADARI APPA RAO AGED 50 YEARS OCC BUSINESS R/O 14-22-11/2, GAVARAPALEM, ANAKAPALE, VISAKHAPATNAM 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 topleased to set aside the Order dt. 28-8-2025 passed in IA.no.537/2025 in OS.no.50/2021 on the file of learned II Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Visakhapatnam and pass IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3299] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI MOHAMMED JAHINDEER SHAALI, S/O LATE SHAIK MADINA AGED 5 JAGADAMBA JUNCTION AREA SMT. RESHMA, W/O MOHAMMED JAHINDEER SHAALI AGED 44 JAGADAMBA JUNCTION AREA, ...PETITIONER(S) BUDHA BURIGI NAIDU, S/O LATE APPANNA AGED 65 YEARS OCC 72, GAVARAPALEM, ANAKAPALE, ADARI APPA RAO AGED 50 11/2, GAVARAPALEM, ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the the High Court may be 2025 passed in IA.no.537/2025 in OS.no.50/2021 on the file of learned II Addl. Civil Judge 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 stay all further proceedings in OS.no.50/2021 on the file of learned II Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam, pending the disposal of CRP in the interest of justice. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3017/2025 Between: 1. MOHAMMED JAHINDEER SHAALI, S/O LATE SHAIK MADINA AGED 45 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 13-24-5 JAGADAMBA JUNCTION AREA, VISAKHAPATNAM,VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2. 2. SMT. RESHMA, W/O MOHAMMED JAHINDEER SHAALI, AGED 44 YEARS R/O D.NO. 13-24-5, JAGADAMBA JUNCTION AREA, VISAKHAPATNAM. VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. BUDHA BURIGI NAIDU, S/O LATE APPANNA AGED 65 YEARS OCC BUSINESS R/O D.NO.1-72, GAVARAPALEM, ANAKAPALE, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2 2. ADAH RAMA CHANDRA RAO, S/O ADAH APPA RAO AGED 50 YEARS OCC BUSINESS R/O 14-22-11/2, GAVARAPALEM, ANAKAPALE, VISAKHAPATNAM 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 topleased to set aside the Order dt. 28-8-2025 passed in IA.no.536/2025 in OS.no.50/2021 on the file of learned II Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Visakhapatnam and pass 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 stay all further proceedings in OS.no.50/2021 on the file of learned II Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam, pending the disposal of CRP in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K R SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 3026 & 3017 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel representing Sri K.R.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners/defendants filed application being I.A.No.537 of 2025 in the suit O.S.No.50 of 2021, under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC seeking to receive the documents filed along with the said IA which has been rejected on 28.08.2025. Challenging the said order, C.R.P.No.3026 of 2025 has been filed. 3. Another application being I.A.No.536 of 2025 filed in the same suit seeking to reopen the matter for adducing further evidence on behalf of the defendants by the same petitioners was also rejected by an order of the same date, on the ground of rejection of I.A.No.537 of 2025. Challenging the said order, C.R.P.No.3017 of 2025 has been filed. 4. The respondents are the plaintiffs. They filed O.S.No.50 of 2021 in the Court of II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam for recovery of money based on the registered mortgage deed dated 28.02.2013 executed by present petitioners. The petitioners filed I.A.No.537 of 2025 to bring on record the unregistered will dated 18.04.2012 said to have been executed by the mother of defendant No.1 (petitioner No.1 herein) in favour of the minor children of the said defendants. The case of the petitioners/defendants as per their written statement inter-alia was that the mortgaged property did not belong to the petitioners but belonged to the mother of petitioner No.1 and this fact was known to the plaintiffs. The application was filed submitting inter-alia that unregistered Will was found later on and consequently the same could not be pleaded in the written statement and after finding the said Will, the same was being filed with the said application. I.A.No.536 of 2025 was filed to reopen the matter for further evidence. 5. The plaintiffs/respondents opposed the applications inter-alia on the ground that the petitioners did not make any reference about the Will document in written statement and in the evidence also, the petitioners did not disclose about the said document. 6. Learned Trial Court, by the impugned order dated 28.08.2025, rejected the applications on the ground that the petitioners did not disclose the alleged unregistered Will dated 18.04.2012 in the written statement and consequently, there was no foundation laid for receiving that document at that stage of the suit. Learned Trial Court also took the view that the document sought to be received will not in any way affect the result of the suit. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that unregistered Will dated 18.04.2012 was not in the knowledge of the petitioners. So, any foundation was not laid in the written statement, since it was found at the subsequent stage. That’s why the application was filed, which could not be rejected on the ground that there was no foundation in the written statement. He further submits that the mother of defendant No.1 is the owner of the house and consequently the Will executed by her in favour of the petitioners’ children was a material document which should have been taken on record, otherwise that would effect the rights of the petitioners’ children and the petitioners being the parents have right to protect the interest of their minor children. 8. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. 9. There is no dispute that in the written statement filed by the petitioners, there is no mention of any such unregistered Will in favour of the children of the petitioners. On a specific query made to the learned counsel for the petitioners, he submits that in the evidence laid by the petitioners-defendants, also, there was no mention of the said Will. So the objection as raised by the plaintiffs that there was no foundation for receiving the said Will, neither in the written statement nor in the evidence of the defendants is not disputed. Further, he submits that the Will was found after the evidence was closed on 24.04.2025. The application was filed on 17.06.2025 to receive the alleged Will. 10. This Court is of the view that, what has been observed in the impugned order to reject the applications inspire confidence. The suit was filed in 2021. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that immediately after closer of the evidence, the unregistered Will was found. The said unregistered Will is of the year 2012. It is also said to be in favour of the children of the petitioners by the petitioner No.1’s mother. The children are minor and with the petitioners. So, the contention raised that it was found only after the closer of the evidence, appears to be afterthought and does not inspire confidence with respect to such plea for allowing the applications. Further, the other reason as assigned in the impugned order is that the document sought to be received will not have any effect on the result of the suit. This Court is also satisfied with the said reasoning. The case of the defendants/petitioners in the written statement is that the subject property under the mortgage deed belonged to the mother of petitioner No.1. The result of the suit then might depend upon the defendants proving their case that the property belonged to the mother of defendant No.1 (petitioner No.1). Consequently, if they succeed in proving that the property did not belong to the petitioners, who executed the mortgage deed, but to the mother, who did not execute the mortgage deed, the question of the alleged Will in favour of the petitoners’ children Will, have no relevance so as to affect the decision in the suit. But if the petitioners fail to prove that the property belonged to the mother, then also the Will by the mother will have no relevance. 11. For the aforesaid reasons I do not find any merit in the CRPs. 12. Both Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Dated: 21.11.2025 AG 131 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 3026 & 3017 of 2025 Dated: 21.11.2025 AG