APHC010241382025 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: 1461/2025 Between: 1. YELESWARAPU HANUMA KUMARI, W/O.NARAYANA MURTHYM, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O.NAZERPET, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. ADDEPALLI VIDYAVATHI, W/O.MALLIKHARJUNA SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O.MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. TENALI MUNICIPALITY, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER AVR MARKET BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, TENALI, 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 toAggrieved by the order in I.A.No. 1373/2024 in O.S.No.493/2021, dated 20-02-2025 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior 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.493/2021 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tenali Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 2. MSVS SUDHA RANI 2 RRR, J C.R.P.No.1461 of 2025 The Court made the following order: The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.493 of 2021 before the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tenali, seeking a permanent injunction restraining the 1st respondent from making constructions in the scheduled property. The petitioner, in the course of the suit, moved I.A.No.1373 of 2024 to implead the Tenali Municipality as the 2nd defendant and for making consequential amendments in the plaint. 2. The Trial Court, by an order, dated 20.02.2025, had partly allowed this application for permitting the Tenali Municipality to be impleaded in the suit. However, the prayer for amendment of the pleadings was rejected. 3. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Civil Revision Petition. 4. It is settled law that separate applications have to be filed for separate reliefs and one application cannot be filed for two separate reliefs. In the present case, the petitioner moved an application, under Order II Rule 10 of CPC, for impleading the Tenali Municipality as well as the application, under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, for making amendments in the plaint. Such a course of action is not permissible. 5. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to move a proper application, under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, for amendment of the plaint and the same shall be considered, by the 3 RRR, J C.R.P.No.1461 of 2025 learned Trial Judge, strictly in accordance with law and after notice being given to the defendants in the suit. 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 4 RRR, J C.R.P.No.1461 of 2025 267 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1461/2025 07.11.2025 MJA