APHC010482192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE Q //«o Ul -f \D V- o PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAN^"^ y CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2321 OF 2025 Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order and decree dated 22.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.283 of 2025 in O.S. No. 8 of 2014 on the file of the Court of XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, Guntur District. Between: Annabathuni Sridhar, S/o Late Prasada Rao, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Annabathunivari Street, Ithanagar, Tenali Guntur District. Aged about 50 years. t •Petitioner/2"'' Respondent/Defendant 1. Paladugu Jayalakshmi, VV/p. Subbarao, Aged about 60 Hosewife, R/o. Ithanagar, Tenali, Guntur District. 2. Annabathuni Sambrajyam, (died) 3. Kadiyala Dhanalakshmi, W/o. Venkateswara Rao, Aged 57 years, Occ; Hosewife, R/o. Gudivada Village, Tenali Mandal, Guntur District. 4. Nagamothu Kasturi, W/o. Srinivasa Rao, Aged 53 years, Occ: Hosewife R/o. Annabathunivari Street; Ithanagar, Tenali, Guntur District ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants years, Occ; f- lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed 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. 8 of 2014 on the file of the court of XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, Guntur District pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Marella Radha Counsel for the Respondents: Sri V.Eswaraiah Chowdary, Advocate The Court made the following order: APHC010482192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3207] FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2321/2025 Between: 1.ANNABATHUNI SRIDHAR, S/0 LATE PRASADA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC. CULTIVATION R/0 ANNABATHUNIVARl STREET ITHANAGAR TENALI GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.PALADUGU JAYALAKSHMI, .W/0 SUBBARAO AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCC. HOSEWIFE R/0 ITHANAGAR TENALI GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.ANNABATHUNI SAMBRAJYAM, (DIED) 3.KADIYALA DHANALAKSHMI, W/0. VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED 57 YEARS OCC. HOSEWIFE R/0. GUDIVADA VILLAGE, TENALI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4.NAGAMOTHU KASTURI, W/0. SRINIVASA RAO, AGED 53 YEARS, OCC. HOSEWIFE R/0. ANNABATHUNIVARl STREET, ITHANAGAR 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 set aside the order and decree dated 22.07.2025 pleased topleased to passed in I.A.No.283 of 2025 in O.S. No. 8 of 2014 on the file of the XI Additional District Judge Tenali Guntur District and allow the Civil Revision petition and pass lA 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 stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 8 of 2014 on the file of the XI Additional District Judge Tenali Guntur District pending disposal of the Civil Revision petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.MARELLA RADHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.VESWARAIAH CHOWDARY The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2321 of 2025 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 1. 22.07.2025 in I.A.No.283 of 2025 in O.S.No.8 of 2014 passed by the learned XI Additional District Judge, Tenali and consequently prayed to set-aside the order impugned. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned 2. counsel for the respondent/caveator. The revision petitioner is the defendant No.2 in the Suit and the respondent No.1 is the plaintiff. The Respondent Nos.3 & 4 are the defendant Nos. 3 & 4 in the Suit. The Suit is filed for the Specific 3. Performance of Contract of Sale, dated 30.09.2010 which was executed by the defendants in respect of the Plaint Schedule Property. At the time of filing of the Suit, as per the actual measurement of the Suit Schedule Property, the Court Fee is paid to an extent of 570 Sq.Yards by undertaking to pay the deficit payment after measuring the Suit Schedule Property. The respondent took objection that the suit agreement of contract was executed for 822 Sq.Yards and as such, the Court Fee has to be paid to the extent of 2 822 Sq.Yards and prayed to permit her to pay the deficit Court Fee on remaining extent of 252 Sq.Yards. The plaintiff/petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.283 of 4. 2025 in O.S.No.8/2024, praying to permit her to pay the deficit Court Fee on the remaining extent of 252 Sq.Yards of Suit Schedule Property. After hearing both sides, the trial court allowed said petition by an order, dated 22.07.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision is filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the Suit, the evidence of the respondents/defendants is closed on 21.12.2020 and arguments were submitted by both sides and the matter is posted for Judgment. At that time, the plaintiff having got knowledge of extent of Schedule Property of 822 Sq.Yards, intentionally paid the Court Fee for only 570 Sq.Yards and now she filed the petition to drag on the proceedings. Learned counsel further contends that the trial court without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the petition filed by the plaintiff and accordingly, she requested to set-aside the order of the trial court by allowing the present Revision. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/caveator would submit that at the time of filing of the Suit, Court Fee is paid for only 570 Sq.Yards but the suit agreement of contract was executed for 822 Sq.Yards. At the time of filing of the Suit itself they undertook to pay the deficit Court Fee after measuring the Schedule Property. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed an application seeking permission to pay the deficit Court Fee and the trial court after considering the submissions of both sides, passed reasoned order allowing the petitioner to pay the deficit Court Fee. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that there are no merits in this Civil Revision Petition and sought to dismiss the same. Flaving considered the submissions of respective counsels and upon, careful examination of the material available on record, it is an admitted fact that the Suit is posted for Judgment on 21.10.2D21. 7. Again, it went on several adjournments from time to time till 11.09.2025. During the pendency of the Suit, the plaintiff filed I.A. seeking permission to pay the deficit Court Fee on the remaining 252 Sq.Yards site. In fact, in the written statement itself, the defendants raised objection that the suit agreement of contract was executed for 822 Sq.Yards and as such the Court Fee has to be paid for an extend of 822 Sq.Yards. But the plaintiff paid the Court Fee only to an extent of 570 Sq.Yards. Considering the fact that the agreement of sale is executed to an extent of 822 Sq.Yards, the trial court \r- 4 permitted the plaintiff to pay deficit Court Fee for an extent of 252 Sq.Yards, by a reasoned order. In our considered view, interference into the reasoned order passed by the trial court on this aspect, is unwarranted. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed. Sd/- B CHITTl JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, Guntur District. 2. One CC to Sri Marella Radha, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri V.Eswaraiah Chowdary, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies GPC vna HIGH COURT DATED: 12/09/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 2321 OF 2025 dismissing this civil revision petition WITHOUT COSTS