1 APHC010446532022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1756/2022 Between: 1. PANUGALLA KOTESWARA RAO, S/O VEERA VENKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O ARUGOLANUPETA VILLAGE, CHATRAI MANDAL, KRISHNA (ELURU) DISTRICT. . ...PETITIONER AND 1. EDA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O ARUGOLANUPETA VILLAGE, CHATRAI MANDAL, KRISHNA (ELURU) DISTRICT. 2. EDA RANGA RAO, S/O NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O ARUGOLANUPETA VILLAGE, CHATRAI MANDAL, KRISHNA (ELURU) DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1710/2022 Between: 1. PANUGALLA KOTESWARA RAO, S/O VEERA VENKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O ARUGOLANUPETA VILLAGE, CHATRAI MANDAL, KRISHNA (ELURU) DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. EDA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O ARUGOLANUPETA VILLAGE, CHATRAI MANDAL, KRISHNA (ELURU) DISTRICT. 2. EDA RANGA RAO, S/O NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O ARUGOLANUPETA VILLAGE, CHATRAI MANDAL, KRISHNA (ELURU) DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondent(S): CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1757/2022 Between: 1. PANUGALLA KOTESWARA RAO, S/O VEERA VENKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O ARUGOLANUPETA VILLAGE, CHATRAI MANDAL, KRISHNA (ELURU) DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 3 1. EDA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O ARUGOLANUPETA VILLAGE, CHATRAI MANDAL, KRISHNA (ELURU) DISTRICT. 2. EDA RANGA RAO, S/O NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O ARUGOLANUPETA VILLAGE, CHATRAI MANDAL, KRISHNA (ELURU) DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K V ADITYA CHOWDARY The Court made the following: 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs:1756, 1710 & 1757 OF 2022 COMMON ORDER: These applications are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the common order dated 29.11.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tiruvuru, Krishna District in connection with I.A.No.26 of 2019, I.A.No.27 of 2019 and I.A.No.28 of 2019 in O.S.No.148 of 2014 respectively. 2. By passing the common order, the learned Civil Judge concerned has disposed of three applications filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, wherein the petitioner intends to prove or adduce three documents at the stage of argument. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the document Nos.1 and 2 are in possession of the plaintiff during filing of the suit, but document No.3 i.e., the attested copy of partition deed dated 21.10.2015 was not in possession of the plaintiff at the time of filing the suit. He further submits that to determine the issue properly regarding the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff, those documents are required to be taken care of. He further submits that unless and until those documents are proved before the learned trial Court, the suit of the petitioner cannot be decided. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the learned Civil Judge concerned has specifically given reasons for rejecting 5 the applications filed by the plaintiff. He further submits that the reasons for dismissing the applications were specifically mentioned in paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the impugned order. He further submits that the petitioner/plaintiff, only to drag the matter, wanted to place those documents at the time of argument. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the merits in the matter, it appears that the plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction. The defendant/respondent contested the suit by filing written statement. After filing the pleadings, the entire stage of discovery and framing of issues has been closed. Thereafter, the parties have adduced their evidence both oral and documentary. Therefore, the matter was posted for argument. At that stage, the plaintiff intends to produce those three documents. Among them, two documents were in possession of the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit, and another document is a registered deed of partition wherein the mother of the 1st defendant was a party. To prove the suit before the learned Civil Judge, the plaintiff has to prove his possession and right to possession. However, it appears that the learned trial Court has categorically observed regarding reasons for rejection of those petitions. I am satisfied with the observation and reasonings of the learned Civil Judge concerned. 6. At this juncture, I find no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned Civil Judge concerned. With the above observations, I find no justification to interfere in the Civil Revision Petitions. 6 7. Hence, the instant Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. The learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the arguments by giving reasonable opportunity to the parties and dispose of the suit within six weeks from the date of communication of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J 30.10.2025 Pmk 7 189 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA C.R.P.Nos:1756, 1710 & 1757 OF 2022 Date: 30.10.2025 Pmk