'‘in the high court of ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS: 3327 OF 2018 AND 6912 OF 2017 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3327 OF 2018 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Order dated 02-05-2018 in I.A.No.468 of 2018 in O.S.No.172 of 2011 on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge court at Nuzvid, Krishna District. Between: Kanchi Suneetha, W/o Rama Krishna, aged about 35 years, R/o Nadim Tiruvuru Tiruvuru village, Tiruvuru Mandal, Krishna District. ...Petitioner/plaintiff AND 1. Vemuri Rajani, W/o Kannka Durga Prasad, Aged about 58 years Amaravathi Road, Guntur Town, Guntur District. 2. Kanchi Ravi Kishore, S/o. Late Peda Raghavaiah, aged about 58 years. Business, R/o. Tiruvuru village, Tiruvuru Mandal, Krishna District. ...Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 to Stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.172 of 2011 on the file of the Senior civil Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna District pending disposal of the above CRP. I': I Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P Prabhakar Rao Counsei for the Respondents: Sri K V Bhanu Prasad CIViL REViSiON PETiTiON NO: 6912 OF 2017 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 07-11-2017 in I.A No. 2207/2017 in O.S No. 171/2011 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge Court at Nuzvid Krishna District. Between: 1. Kanchi Suneetha, W/o. Rama Krishna R/o. Nadim Tiruvuru, Tiruvuru Village, Tiruvuru Mandal, Krishna District. ...PETiTiONER(S) AND 1. Kanchi Raghu Sheetal,, S/o. Late Rama Satya Prasad Flat NO. 416 Madhuban Apartments, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. 2. Kanchi Ravi Kishore, S/o. Late Peda Raghavaiah Business R/o. Tiruvu Village, Tiruvuru Mandal, Krishna District. ...RESPONDENTS I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017fCRPMP. NO: 8887 OF 2017) 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 to stay all further proceedings in O.S No. 171 of 2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna District pending disposal of the above CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner; Sri P Prabhakar Rao Counsel for the Respondents: Sri K V Bhanu Prasad The Court made the following Common Order: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR r^lVIl REVISION PETITION NO: 3327/2018 APHC010429822018 [3365] Between: ...PETITIONER Kanchi Suneetha AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Vemuri Rajani and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.P PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): K V BHANU PRASAD 1. niVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 6912/2017 Between: ...PETITIONER Kanchi Suneetha AND Kanchi Raghu Sheetal and Others...RESPONDENT(S) 2 Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.3327of2018& C.R.P.No.6912 of 2017 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.KVBHANU PRASAD The Court made the following: 3 Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.3327 of 2018 & C.R.P.No.6912of 2017 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3327 of 2018 and CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6912 of 2017 COMMON ORDER: Civil Revision Petition No.3327 of 2018, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the plaintiff assailing the order dated 02.05.2018 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid in I.A.No.468 of 2018 in O.S.No.172 of 2011. 2. Civil Revision Petition No.6912 of 2017, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the plaintiff assailing the order dated 07.11.2017 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid in I.A.No.2207 of 2017 in O.S.No.171 of 2011. Heard arguments of Sri P.Prabhakara Rao, the learned 3. counsel for revision petitioner. Though appearance was made for respondents, none appeared to argue for them. 4. Perused the record. O.S.No.172 of 2011 and O.S.No.171 of 2011 before the 5. learned Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna District are suits to / 4 Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.3327of2018& C.R.P.No.6912of2017 declare the registered sale deeds dated 20.06.2011 as void and unenforceable since they were obtained by force and fraud played by second respondent in obtaining the said sale deeds in the name of the first respondent. There are consequential reliefs prayed therein. Respective defendants put in their written statements. Issues were settled. Trial commenced. Evidence of PW.1 was recorded in chief. While they were coming up for cross-examination, the plaintiff moved I.A.No.468 of 2018 in O.S.No.172 of 2011 and I.A.No.2207 of 2017 in O.S.No.171 of 2011 under Order XVI Rules 14 and 15 C.P.C. to summon Sub- Divisional Police Officer, Nuzvid along with a document (representation dated 19.06.2011) which was addressed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eluru bearing No.C.No.25/Camp.ER/2011. It was stated that the husband of plaintiff was earlier put under threat and panic and the said representation was addressed to the police in that regard. Learned trial Court assigned various reasons and dismissed the petitions. Assailing them the present revisions are filed stating that seeking summons to a witness and document is a matter of statutory right and the trial Court erroneously dismissed them. \ / 5 Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.3327 of 2018 & C.R.P.No.6912of2017 6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions and the material placed before this Court, it is seen that in the suits dispute is between the plaintiff and defendants and that is with reference to the validity otherwise of the sale deeds. The entire set of allegations in the petitions is about defendants claiming that the husband of plaintiff though borrowed money from outsiders for his own purposes was attributing those debts to the defendants. It was in that regard representation was made to police and it was that representation which was sought to be summoned. In the opinion of this Court the crux of the dispute between parties has nothing to do with the proposed witness and proposed document. At any rate, issues were not with reference to any fact concerning the proposed witness and the document. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be said to be erroneous. There is no merit in these or I revisions. 7. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. The order dated 02.05.2018 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid in I.A.No.468 of 2018 in O.S.No.172 of 2011 6 Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.3327of2018& C.R.P.No.6912of2017 and the order dated 07.11.2017 of the learned Senior Civil Judge Nuzvid in IANo.2207 of 2017 in O.S.No.171 of 2011 are confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any shall Stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuzvid, Krishna District. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuzvid, Krishna District. One CC to Sri P Prabhakar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 1. 2. 3. One CC to Sri K V Bhanu Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 5. Three CD Copies 6. SAM vna HIGH COURT DATED:26/03/2025 COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.3327 of 2018 & 6912 of 2017 DISMISSING THESE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS’ WITHOUT COSTS