1 VS,J C.R.P.No.3200 of 2023 APHC010618792023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3200/2023 Between: 1. BALIJEPALLI KRISHNA KUMARI, W/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO.13/147- A, FLAT NO.501, SRINIVASA ENCLAVE, PATIMEEDA, GUDIVADA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. VEMPARALA RAMA LINGA MURTHY, S/O LATE SURYA PRAKASAM, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O D.NO.6-94/2/5, LIG-12, PHASE-2, E-SEVA LANE, NEAR KADIMI NURSING HOME, CHANDANAGAR, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE. 2. VEMPARALA SATYA VANI, W/O LATE RADHA KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO.3-131, MAIN ROAD, KANDREGULA, PEDAPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 3. VEMPARALA SAI SURYA PRAKASH, S/O LATE RADHA KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, STUDENT, R/O D.NO.3-131, MAIN ROAD, KANDREGULA PEDAPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 2 VS,J C.R.P.No.3200 of 2023 4. VEMPARALA RAGHAVI, D/O LATE RADHA KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, STUDENT, R/O D.NO.3-131, MAIN ROAD, KANDREGULA, PEDAPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 5. KOTTA SITARATNAM, W/O SUBRAHMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO.203, D.NO.5-5-1159/203, GOYAL RESIDENCY, SAINTATHA COLONY, OPPOSITE PANAMA GODOWNS, VANASTHALIPURAM, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE. 6. CHINTA SURYA KALA, W/O RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O FLAT NO.107, BLOCK-1, HEMA DURGA ESTATES, DEEPTISRI NAGAR, HAFEEJPET, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE. 7. NAMUDURI VISHALAKSHI, W/O SURYANARAYANA SASTRY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, RIO KONDA REDDYVARI VEEDHI, AMALAPURAM, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. 8. M/S INDIAN BANK, TEMPLE STREET BRANCH REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, TEMPLE STREET, KAKINADA, KAKINADA 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 set aside the Order Dt.02-11- 2023, I.A No.25 8 of 2023 in 0.S No.40 of 2022, on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 0.S No. 40 of 2022, On the file of II Additional 3 VS,J C.R.P.No.3200 of 2023 Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, pending disposal of the above C.R.P. and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper. 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 extend the interim order granted in C.R.P No.3200 of 2025, dated 11-12-2023 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V JAGGI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SREEDHAR VALIVETI 2. M SRI ATCHYUT The Court made the following: 4 VS,J C.R.P.No.3200 of 2023 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff challenging the order dated 02.11.2023 passed in I.A.No.258 of 2023 in O.S.No.40 of 2022 on the file of Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, whereby, the application filed under Order I Rule 10 and under Order VI Rule 17 and under Sections 94 and 151 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking impleadment of the 8th defendant and permission to amend the plaint schedule in the suit was dismissed. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff, 1st respondent/1st defendant and one Vemparala Radhakrishna are children of Vemparala Surya Prakasam and Vemparala Mahalakshmi. The plaint schedule properties are Hindu undivided coparcenary joint family properties and were in joint possession and enjoyment of the parents and siblings of the petitioner, including her. In August, 1996, the said Vemparala Radhakrishna, who is the husband of respondent No.2/defendant No.2 and father of respondent Nos.3 and 4/defendant Nos.3 and 4, passed away. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner/plaintiff i.e. Vemparala Surya Prakasam died on 23.08.2001 and the mother of the petitioner/plaintiff i.e. Vemparala Mahalakshmi died on 07.03.2019. Subsequently, as disputes arose 5 VS,J C.R.P.No.3200 of 2023 between the petitioner/plaintiff and the defendants, O.S.No.40 of 2022 has been filed on the file of Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada seeking the following relief: <a) preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into six equal and equitable shares according to good and bad qualities and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff and b) thereafter appoint an commissioner for the partition of the plaint schedule property as per the preliminary decree by meets and bounds and c) pass a final decree for the separate share and separate possession for the share allotted to the plaintiff and d) direct the defendants to furnish true, proper and correct account of the income and expenditure over the plaint schedule properties and 3) award future profits an appoint an advocate commissioner for conducting enquiry into the future profits and f) pass a decree for recovery of the amount due to the plaintiff and g) award costs to the plaintiff from the defendants and…= 3. Pending the said suit, the petitioner came to know that an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was deposited in Indian Bank account 6 VS,J C.R.P.No.3200 of 2023 No.429209075, temple street branch, Kakinada in favour of the petitioner’s mother i.e. Vemparala Mahalakshmi, which fact was not informed by the 1st respondent/1st defendant to the petitioner. When the petitioner approached the concerned bank manager, she was informed that without there being any court order, the account particulars of Vemparala Mahalakshmi could not be disclosed. As such, the petitioner filed I.A.No.258 of 2023 under Order I Rule 10 and under Order VI Rule 17 and under Section 94 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking permission of the trial Court to implead the bank as 8th defendant in the suit and to permit her to amend the plaint schedule. The trial Court, on 02.11.2023 has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner could obtain the said particulars through other modes recognized by law and that the proposed party (bank) is not a proper and necessary party. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 4. When the revision petition came up for admission on 11.12.2023, this Court has granted stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.40 of 2022 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, initially for a period of six weeks, which was extended thereafter, from time to time. 7 VS,J C.R.P.No.3200 of 2023 5. Heard Mr. T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M. Sri Atchyut, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6; and Ms. A. Padma Vanditha, learned counsel representing M/s. Sreedhar Valiveti, learned Standing Counsel for the 8th respondent. 6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the facts that led to filing of the suit and further submitted that when the petitioner questioned the 1st respondent/1st defendant with regard to the money pertaining to her late mother i.e. Vemparala Mahalakshmi, the 1st respondent/1st defendant stated that late Vemparala Mahalakshmi donated the same to temples, which was initially believed by the petitioner. But, later, the petitioner came to know that an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was deposited in Indian Bank, temple street branch, Kakinada in the name of late Vemparala Mahalakshmi in S.B. A/c No.429209075. He contended that when the petitioner approached the bank authorities to secure particulars of the said bank account of late Vemparala Mahalakshmi, she was informed that no particulars would be furnished without there being any court order. As such, the petitioner was constrained to file an application before the trial Court seeking impleadment of the aforesaid bank as 8th 8 VS,J C.R.P.No.3200 of 2023 defendant and also to consequentially amend the plaint schedule. But, without considering the facts and circumstances, the trial Court has erroneously dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. He contended that if the particulars of the said bank account are furnished by the concerned authorities, the petitioner would get an opportunity to include the same in the items of properties in the suit schedule. Hence, requested to set-aside the order passed by the trial Court on 02.11.2023. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6 and learned counsel appearing for the 8th respondent supported the order passed by the trial Court in all aspects and submitted that impleading the 8th respondent herein as defendant in the suit would not serve any purpose. Hence requested to dismiss this petition. 8. Perused the entire material available on record. 9. It can be seen that the petitioner/plaintiff, 1st respondent/1st defendant and one Vemparala Radhakrishna are children of Vemparala Surya Prakasam and Vemparala Mahalakshmi. Subsequent to the demise of Vemparala Surya Prakasam and Vemparala Mahalakshmi, the 1st respondent/1st defendant, being 9 VS,J C.R.P.No.3200 of 2023 the eldest male person in the family, used to manage the family affairs. While so, the petitioner questioned the 1st respondent/1st defendant with regard to certain amount of money belonging to her late mother; in turn, she was informed that the said money was donated to temples by her late mother. However, the petitioner came to know that an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was deposited in Indian Bank S.B.A/c No.429209075, temple street branch, Kakinada in the name of her mother. When the petitioner approached the concerned bank, for obtaining particulars of the said bank account, she was denied the said particulars. As such, the petitioner filed I.A.No.258 of 2023 under Order I Rule 10 and under Order VI Rule 17 and under Sections 94 and 151 of Civil Procedure Code with a plea to implead the bank as 8th defendant. 10. For better appreciation of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to Order I Rule 10 and under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, which reads as under: <Order I, Rule 10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff.4 (1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary 10 VS,J C.R.P.No.3200 of 2023 for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just. (2) Court may strike out or add parties.4The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. (3) No person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent. (4) Where defendant added, plaint to be amended.4 Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant (5) Subject to the provisions of the 1 [Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (XV of 1877)], section 22, the proceedings as against any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons. Order VI, Rule 17. Amendment of pleadings.4The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real 11 VS,J C.R.P.No.3200 of 2023 questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.= 11. The trial Court, considering the individual counter affidavits filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2/defendant Nos.1 and 2, has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner, by observing as under: <…the petitioner can obtain the particulars as sought by her in the petition, through other modes recognized by law. When the proposed party is not a proper and necessary party in the present suit claim, it is not necessary to add the Indian Bank as a party in the suit as rightly argued by the learned counsels for the respondents 1 to 4 and 6. In such circumstances, this Court did no find any merits to allow the petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed without costs. Accordingly, the point is answered.= 12. On a perusal of the entire material on record and the order passed by the trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner, because, if at all the petitioner intends to obtain particulars of the account belonging to her late mother, she could do so by submitting a representation or by adopting any other lawful procedures recognized under law. The mere fact that the 8th 12 VS,J C.R.P.No.3200 of 2023 respondent bank has not provided the particulars of the account of the petitioner’s late mother when she has approached the authorities is not sufficient to implead the said bank as 8th defendant. As such, this Court feels that the order dated 02.11.2023 passed in I.A.No.258 of 2023 in O.S.No.40 of 2022 on the file of Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada need not be interfered with. 13. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the 8th respondent bank by way of a representation or by adopting any other lawful procedures recognized under law for issuance of particulars of S.B.A/c No.429209075 pertaining to her late mother. On such approach, the 8th respondent may consider the same in accordance with law. 14. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:16.10.2025 Gss