APHC010272622024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1408/2024 Between: 1. SAI PRASANNA MACHINENI,, W/O. M.SHIVARAMA KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. PLOT NO.121/7, 19TH ROAD, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, KUKATPALLI, HYDERABAD. ...PETITIONER AND 1. POOLA KUNTALA NARAYANA REDDY, S/O.CHINNA OBI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O.MARALA VILLAGE, BUKKAPATNAM MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 2. PULLAREDDYGARI NAGI REDDY, S/O.CHENNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.8/446, PRASANTHI MANDIRAM, PUTTAPARTHI, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 3. BONALA MAHENDRA REDDY, , S/O.CHELAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O.CHINNA KUDALA, LINGALA MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. KASIREDDY CHANDRASEKHARA REDDY, S/O.KONA REDDY. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.1-1807, MUDDIGUBBA POST, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 5. GADDAM CHINNA OBI REDDY, S/O.KONA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O.INDUKURU, MUDIGUBBA MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 VS,J C.R.P.No.1408 of 2024 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 to set-side the Order, dt.29.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.155/2023 in O.S.No.28/2017 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Hindupur, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 and further proceedings in O.S.No.28/2017 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Hindupur, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HARINADH NIDAMANURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.R.P.No.1408 of 2024 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1408/2024 ORDER: The petitioner/plaintiff filed the present Civil Revision Petition challenging the orders passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Hindupur, in I.A.No.155 of 2023 in O.S.No.28 of 2017, filed under Section 20 of Indian Evidence Act, seeking permission to examine her husband by name M.Shivarama Krishna as P.W.1 on her behalf to prove her case. 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in O.S.No.28 of 2017. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to herein as arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The plaintiff filed O.S. No.28 of 2017 before the Court of the learned II Additional District Judge, Hindupur, seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 26.06.2014 executed by defendants Nos.1 to 5 in her favour in respect of the plaint schedule property admeasuring Ac.4.65 cents situated at Chilamathur Village. The total sale consideration was fixed at ₹19,50,000/- per acre, amounting to ₹90,67,500/-, out of which an amount of ₹20,00,000/- was paid as advance, and the balance was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. It was agreed that the defendants would first effect mutation of their names in the revenue records and obtain Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds to enable registration. Despite repeated requests, the defendants failed to produce the necessary documents and avoided performance of their part of the contract. The plaintiff, being always 4 VS,J C.R.P.No.1408 of 2024 ready and willing to perform her part, issued a legal notice dated 15.05.2017 demanding execution of the sale deed on 05.06.2017. However, the defendants failed to appear before the Sub-Registrar, Chilamathur, leading to the filing of the above suit for specific performance. 4. Pending the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A. No.155 of 2023 under Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking permission to examine her husband, Sri M. Shivarama Krishna, as P.W.1 on her behalf, stating that she was suffering from Lumbar Spondylitis and Rheumatoid Arthritis and was unable to travel from Hyderabad to Hindupur to depose. The defendants opposed the said petition contending that there was no pleading in the plaint regarding the participation of the plaintiff’s husband in the sale negotiations and that, if she was unable to travel, she could get her evidence recorded through an Advocate Commissioner. The learned II Additional District Judge, Hindupur, after hearing both sides, dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel representing the respondents. 6. On a perusal of the impugned order, it can be observed that the learned trial Court, upon considering the rival contentions and the pleadings in the suit, particularly the averments in the plaint, observed that nowhere in the plaint the petitioner had mentioned about her husband’s knowledge or participation in the sale negotiations with the respondents. On the contrary, in the very first 5 VS,J C.R.P.No.1408 of 2024 paragraph of the plaint, it was specifically pleaded that the defendants are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and that the negotiations for the sale were directly between the plaintiff and the defendants, pursuant to which the suit agreement of sale was executed. The trial Court, therefore, held that the plaintiff alone is the proper and competent person to give evidence as P.W.1 in support of her case. However, liberty was given to her to examine her husband as one of the witnesses, but not in her place as P.W.1. The Court further observed that if the petitioner is genuinely suffering from ailments such as Lumbar Spondylitis and Rheumatoid Arthritis, she has the option of getting her evidence recorded through an Advocate Commissioner. Since the evidence of the plaintiff, being the primary witness, is essential for effective cross-examination and proper adjudication of the issues in the suit, the learned trial Court found no justification to permit her husband to depose on her behalf. Accordingly, the learned trial Court rightly dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner cannot be permitted to examine her husband in her place as P.W.1. 7. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any merits in the present Civil Revision Petition. But however, the petitioner is always at liberty to file an appropriate application before the trial Court seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to examine her, as she is suffering from Lumbar Spondilitis and Rheumatoid Arthritis. On filing such application, the trial Court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, duly 6 VS,J C.R.P.No.1408 of 2024 considering the fact that the petitioner is not in a position to appear before the Court for giving her evidence. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:17.10.2025 JLV 7 VS,J C.R.P.No.1408 of 2024 211 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1612/2024 Date:17.10.2025 JLV 8 VS,J C.R.P.No.1408 of 2024 The plaintiff filed the present suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 26.06.2014 executed by defendants Nos.1 to 5 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property admeasuring Ac.4.65 cents situated at Chilamathur Village. The agreed sale consideration was ₹19,50,000/- per acre, amounting to a total of ₹90,67,500/-. At the time of execution of the agreement of sale, the defendants received a sum of ₹20,00,000/- as advance and agreed to receive the balance amount of ₹70,67,500/- at the time of execution of the registered sale deed within three months. It was agreed that the defendants would first complete mutation of their names in the revenue records and obtain Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds, which were necessary for registration of the sale deed. Despite repeated demands, the defendants failed to produce the said documents and avoided performance of their part of the contract. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and pay the balance sale consideration. Subsequently, on 15.05.2017, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants calling upon them to execute the registered sale deed by fixing 05.06.2017 as the date for registration. The defendants acknowledged receipt of the notice but neither replied nor appeared before the Sub-Registrar, Chilamathur, on the said date. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit seeking a decree for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 26.06.2014 and for consequential reliefs.