IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 235 OF 2025 and LA No.1 of 2025 in CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 2214 of 2024 and 2677 of 2024 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 235 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 20-01-2025 in I.A.No.932 of 2024 in H.M.O.P.No.77 OF 2020 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Krishna, Machilipatnam. Between: Nalleboina Naga Divya, W/o Thambi Prashank, Aged about 31 R/o.D.No.28/344-1, Achyutarao Street, Circlepet, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. years, ...Petitioner in CRP No. 235 of 2025/Respondent in CRP No.2214 of 2024/Petitioner in CRP No.2677 of 2024 AND Nalleboina Thambi Prashank, S/o.Angel Xavier, Aged about 35 years. Software Employee, R/o.D.NO.21/411-4F-2, Trisakthi Enclave, Bhaskarapuram, Machilipatnam,Krishna District. ...Respondent in CRP No. 235 of 2025/ Petitioner in CRP No.2214 of 2024/Respondent in CRP No. 2677 of 2024 lA No: 1 OF 2025 in CRP No. 235 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.77/2020 on ' the file of the PrI. Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division), Machilipatnam 1 X*-:" pending disposal of main Revision Petition. I.A No.1 of 2025 in CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2214 OF 2024 Petition under Section 148 r/w 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the letter addressed by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Machilipatnam, Krishna District, the High Court may be pleased to extend the time granted on 22.11.2024 in C.R.P No.2214 of 2024 for further period of three more (3) months for disposing of in HMOP No. 77 of 2020 and H.M.O.P No. 82 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge( Senior Division), Machilipatnam, Krishna District. I.A No.1 of 2025 in CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2677 OF 2024 Petition under Section 148 r/w 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the letter addressed by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Machilipatnam, Krishna District, the High Court may be pleased to extend the time granted on 22.11.2024 in C.R.P No.2214 of 2024 for further period of three more (3) months for disposing of in HMOP No. 77 of 2020 and H.M.O.P No. 82 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge( Senior Division), Machilipatnam, Krishna District. These petitions coming on for hearing upon perusing the letter addressed by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Machilipatnam, Krishna District and the common order of the High Court dated 22/11/2024 in CRP Nos.2214 of 2024 & 2677 of 2024 and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, Counsel for the petitioner (wife) in CRP No.235 of 2025, CRP No. 2677 of 2024 and Respondent in CRP No. 2214 of 2024 and of Sri V.S.R Anjaneyulu, Senior Counsel representing Sri V. Satyanarayana Prasad, Counsel for the Respondent(husband) in CRP No. 235 of 2025, CRP No. 2677 of 2024 and petitioner in CRP No. 2214 of 2024. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER 1 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.235 of 2025 & I.A.No.l of 2025 in CRP.Nos.2214 and 2677 of 2024) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TiLHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 235/2Q2fi and LA.No.1 of 2025 in C.R.P.No.2214 of 2024 & 2677 of 2024 COMMON ORDER ; Heard Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned petitioner/wife and Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned Senior representing Sri V.Satyanarayana Prasad, learned respondent/husband. counsel for the Counsel, counsel for the 2. The respondent/husband filed H.M.O.P. No. 77 of 2020 seeking a decree of dissolution of marriage. The petitioner/wife filed I.A. No. 932 of 2024 in H.M.O.P. No. 77 of 2020 seeking to amend her counter/written statement, which was rejected. The petitioner/wife also filed H.M.O.P. No. 82 of 2021, which is pending before the same Court, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. In that of 2024 seeking an amendment to her petition/plaint case, she filed I.A. No. 931 to the same effect as sought in I.A.No.932 of 2024 in H.M.O.P.No.77 of 2020. The amendment in H.M.O.P. No. 82 of 2021 was allowed, whereas the same amendment in H.M.O.P.No.77 of 2020 was rejected, both orders having been passed by same Court on the same date, i.e. on 20.01.2025. 2 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.235 of 2025 & I.A.No.l of 2025 in CRP.Nos.2214 and 2677 of 2024) C.R.P.No.235 of 2015 has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 20.01.2025 passed in I.A.No.932 of 2024 in H.M.O.P.No.77 of 2020 on the file of the 3. Principal Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Krishna, Machilipatnam. Previously, one C.R.P. No. 1101 of 2021 was filed by the respondent herein and was disposed of by order dated 20.10.2021, passed by a Division Bench, directing the trial Court to dispose of the matrimonial disputes as expeditiously as possible, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party, while also taking into account the pendency of other proceedings before the said Court. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: 4. “We note that the petitioner-husband has instituted the suit for divorce. The respondent-wife has filed written statement and the matter is ready for hearing. Although the law prescribes the matrimonial proceedings to be disposed of within a specified time frame, it must be borne in mind that due to prevailing pandemic conditions as well as the high pendency of cases in the trial courts, the statutory time schedule cannot be always adhered to. However, balancing the aforesaid factors and in order to ensure that there is no undue and unnecessary delay in disposal of the matrimonial proceeding, we direct the trial court to dispose of the matrimonial proceeding as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, however, keeping in mind the pendency of the proceeding before the said court. There shall be no order as to costs.” 3 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.235 of 2025 & I.A.No.l of 2025 in CRP.Nos.2214 and 2677 of 2024) Thereafter, C.R.P.Nos, 2214 and 2677 of 2024 5. were again filed by the respondent/husband in relation to the aforesaid H.M.O.Ps., which were disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to hear and dispose of both H.M.O.Ps., as the Court was of the opinion that a comnnon trial could be conducted, as common facts were involved. In view of the same, both H.M.O.Ps., were directed to be taken up together and disposed of expeditiously by the learned trial Court within an outer limit of four (04) months from the date of the said order. It was further observed that the parties should not seek any adjournment, except in circumstances that prevented physical appearance which case they might be permitted to appear on-line. The relevant paragraph Nos.5 to 9 of the common order dated 22.11.2024 read under; before the Court in as 5. This Court has queried both the learned Counsel to whether the proceedings before the trial Court be concluded within three months. Both the learned Counsel would submit that they will cooperate and will not seek any further adjournments, except in the event of any eventuality or any situation, which disables the parties from physically appearing before the Court. The submissions of the both the learned counsel are placed on record. as can 6. 4 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.235 of 2025 & I.A.No.l of 2025 in CRP.Nos.2214 and 2677 of 2024) Both the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to hear and dispose of H.M.O.P.No.77 of 2020 and H.M.O.P.No.82 of 2021 the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Machilipatnam. The first one is for dissolution of the marriage and the second one is for restitution of conjugal rights. This Court is of the opinion that a common trial can be conducted as common facts are involved. In that view of the matter, both the HMOPs, stated supra, shall be taken into consideration and dispose of expeditiously by the trial Court within an outer limit of four months from today. 7. on It is made clear that the parties shall not seek any adjournment except in the event of any circumstance that would disable the party from physically appearing before the Court. In such an event, the parties may be permitted to appear on-line. 8. 9. Both the Civil Revision Petitions are ordered accordingly. 6. In the aforesaid C.R.P.Nos.2214 and 2677 of 2024, interlocutory applications i.e., I.A.No.1 of 2025 in both C.R.Ps., pursuant to the letters of the learned trial Court, were filed seeking extension of time, in which the order dated 04.04.2025 was passed, which reads as under; 5 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.235 of 2025 & I.A.No.l of 2025 in CRP.Nos.2214 and 2677 of 2024) “Both the Civil Revision Petitions have been listed for . time on the letter of the learned Court, I Additional District Judge, i/c Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam along letter of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Machilipatnam, requesting for extension of time, for the facts stated in her letter. 2. Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the wife, submits that the wife filed an application for amendment and order of rejection in H.M.O.P.No.77 of 2020 C.R.P.No.235 of 2025. extension of with the against the she has filed 3. Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Advocate, submits that previously also by order dated 20.10.2021 passed in C.R.P.No.1101 of 2021 by the Division Bench, the direction was given to the trial Court, expeditiously, as far as possible, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, to decide the HMOPs. He further submits that in spite of the order passed in the present Civil Revision Petitions, the proceedings are being lingered on from the side of the wife either by taking adjournments or by filing unnecessary applications. 4. Without observing, at this stage, on the aforesaid submissions, post the matters on 25.04.2025 along with C.R.P.No.235 of 2025. 5. It is clarified that the learned Court shall proceedings of those HMOPs but shall 25.04.2025.” continue with the not pass final order by 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/wife submits that the amendment was allowed in H.M.O.P. No. 82 of 2021, the application seeking the same relief on identical grounds and for insertion of the once 6 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.235 of 2025 & I.A.No.l of 2025 in CRP.Nos.2214 and 2677 of 2024) same paragraph by way of amendment in H.M.O.P. No. 77 of 2020 ought not to have been rejected. Learned counsel for the respondent/husband submits that the rejection was justified, inasmuch as H.M.O.P. No. 82 of 2021 is presently at the stage of examination of witnesses, whereas in H.M.O.P. No. 77 of 2020, part of the evidence has already been recorded and the trial has commenced. He further submitted that in spite of the orders directing the trial Court to ensure expeditious disposal, the application for amendment was filed merely as a device to delay the proceedings. 8. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the petitioner/wife and the respondent/husband, and perused the material on record. Taking into consideration over all facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that once the amendment to the same effect was allowed in H.M.O.P. No. 82 of 2021, holding that it was necessary for the adjudication of the dispute, the same could not have been rejected in H.M.O.P. No. 77 of 2020, when the nature of the amendment and the pleadings sought to be added in both the proceedings were identical. One H.M.O.P., is for divorce and the other for restitution of conjugal rights and that too by the same Court, on the same date order, though passed separately. The provisions of 10. 7 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.235 of 2025 & I.A.No.l of 2025 in CRP.Nos.2214 and 2677 of 2024) Order VI Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (in short ‘CPC’) are procedural, which are handmade of justice to advance substantial justice, when there is a common trial Co-ordinate Bench, the submission of the learned on common facts directed by a counsel for the respondent/husband that in the H.M.O.P., evidence had not started application for amendment was rightly allowed, but in another in which, some evidence had been led, the application for amendment to the effect was rightly rejected, referring to Order VI Rule 17 Proviso CPC cannot be accepted. , so same 11. The learned Trial Court must also have given due consideration and weight to the direction issued by the Coordinate Bench in C.R.P. Nos. 2214 and 2677 of 2024 for facts are involved, for expeditious disposal of the matters. a common trial, as common 12. Considering the direction as issued by the Division Bench C.R.P.No.1101 of 2021, and also in C.R.P. Nos. 2214 and 2677 of 2024, C.R.P.No.235 of 2025 is being disposed of, finally with a direction to the learned trial Court, that the amendment allowed in H.M.O.P.No.82 of 2021 shall also hold good in H.M.O.P.No.77 of 2020. The rejection of the amendment application in H.M.O.P. No.77 of 2020 shall be of adverse effect in those proceedings. in no 8 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.235 of 2025 & I.A.No.l of 2025 in CRP.Nos.2214 and 2677 of 2024) Further direction is issued to the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) Machilipatnam, to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.77 of 2020 and H.M.O.P.No.82 of 2021 in accordance with law within a further 13. period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, positively. The parties are directed to cooperate in the proceedings also in terms of the previous directions issued in C.R.P.Nos.2214 and 2677 of 2024. In the event any party fails to cooperate, the learned trial Court shall proceed ex parte. The time limit shall be adhered. 14. Accordingly, I.A.No.l of 2025 in C.R.P.No.2214 of 2024 and I.A.No.l of 2025 in C.R.P.No.2677 of 2024 are also allowed. 15. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court. 16. No order as to costs. X As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall also stand closed. Sd/- M. PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTTW\R //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Machilipatnam. Krishna Bistrict. 2. The Principal District Judge, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 3. One CC to Sri. V Satyanarayana Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Three CD Copies. stu HIGH COURT DATED:25/04/2025 COMMON ORDER C.R.P No. 235 of 2025 and I.A No.1 of 2025 in CRP.No.2214 of 2024 & CRP No. 2677 of 2024 ^ang^ ^ 2 UUL 2025 'V\‘' tiic -kyy' DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 235 of 2025 Allowing the I.A No.1 of 2025 in CRP No.2214 of 2024 & I.A No.1 of 2025 in CRP No. 2677 of 2024 WITHOUT COSTS