APHC010121362025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 682/2025 Between: 1. CHAKKA KESAVARAO, , S/O.LATE CHENNAIAH TALLURI CHENNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, HINDU, R/O.LAKSHMI NILAYA, BUS STAND ROAD, GANGAVATHIPOST, KOPPOLE DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. 2. CHAKKA UMA MAHESWARARAO,, S/O.LATE CHENNAIAH@ TALLURI CHENNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, HINDU, HEALTH ASSISTANT, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTER, GURAVAJIPETA, KANIGIRI POST AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. CHAKKA MAHALAXAMMA, W/O.LATE CHENNAIAH TALLURI CHENNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, HINDU, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O.D.NO.7/67, O.V. ROAD, KANIGIRI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. CHAKKA VENKATA SUBBA RAO, S/O.LATE CHENNAIAH TALLURI CHENNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, HINDU, HEALTH ASSISTANT, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTER, KURICHEDU POST, DARSI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. TALLURI SAVITRAMMA, (DIED) 4. TALLURI BULLI ADINARAYANA, S/O.CHINNA VENKATESWARLU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.H.NO.4- 201(L), O.V. ROAD, KANIGIRI POST AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2 VS,J C.R.P.No.682 of 2025 5. TALLURI SESHA LAXMI KUMARI, W/O.BULLI ADINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, HINDU, R/O.H.NO.4-201(L), O.V. ROAD, KANIGIRI POST AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 6. TALLURI NAVEEN BABU, S/O. BULLI ADINARAYANA, HINDU, BEING MINOR, REP. BY HIS NATURAL FATHER. GUARDIAN, I.E., TALLURI BULL ADINARAYANA, S/O.CHINNA VENKATESWARLU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.H.NO.4- 201(L), O.V. ROAD, KANIGIRI POST AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 7. TUMMAPUDI ANANTHA LAKSHMI, W/O.SUDHAKARARAO, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, HINDU, R/O.MULAGUNTAPADU VILLAGE, SINGARAYAKONDA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 8. TALLURI SRINIVASULU, S/O.BRAHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, HINDU, R/O.SUBHASH ROAD, KANIGIRI VILLAGE AND POST AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 9. POLICHERLA NAYAB RASOOL, S/O.MAHAMMAD, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, MUSLIM, R/0.D.N0.9/773-A, 9TH WARD, INDIRA COLONY, KANIGIRI TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 10. KOLIPARTHI RAJASEKHAR, S/O.CHINNA VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, HINDU, R/O.D.NO.8/343, 8TH WARD, GUNUPUTIVARI VEEDHI, KANIGIRI TOWN, PRAKASAM 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 toThe Revision Petition is being preferred aggrieved by the order and decree dated 18-02-2025 passed in I.A.No.1773 of 2024 in O.S.No.79 of 2009 n the file of the court of Learned Family-Cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole, as illegal, without jurisdiction 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 may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.79 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Learned Family-Cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole, pending disposal of the main C.R.P and pass such 3 VS,J C.R.P.No.682 of 2025 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SHAIK ASIF 2. The Court made the following: 4 VS,J C.R.P.No.682 of 2025 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order I.A.No.1773 of 2024 in O.S.No.79 of 2009 dated 18.02.2025 passed by the Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole, wherein the trial court dismissed the petition filed under Order XIII Rule 10(1) under Section 22 of Civil Procedure Code seeking to send for the depositions of deceased Talluri Subbarayudu/DW.1 in O.S.No.15 of 2001 which are available in A.S.No.631 of 2007 on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for comparison of signatures of deceased Talluri Subbarayudu with the signatures of deceased available in Exs.B1 to B3. 2. The revision petitioners herein are Defendants 5 and 6/Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs and Respondent Nos.3 to 10 are Defendant Nos.1 to 4 & 7 to 10 in O.S.No.79 of 2009. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will refer to as they are arrayed before the Court below. 4. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.79 of 2009 against the defendants seeking for partition and separate possession of plaint A and B schedule properties into five equal shares i.e. plaintiff Nos.1, 2, defendant Nos.1, 5 and 6 and to allot each one such a share to the plaintiffs and D1, D5 and D6, in total plaintiff No.1 is entitled for two shares and other consequential reliefs. During the pendency of said suit, defendant Nos. 5 and 6 earlier filed two IAs’ Nos.1095 of 2023 and 1096 of 2024 seeking to send for depositions of 5 VS,J C.R.P.No.682 of 2025 deceased Talluri Subbarayudu/DW.1 recorded in O.S.No.15 of 2021 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kandukur for comparison of his signatures with the signatures said to have been in Exs.B1 to B3 registered documents, which are marked in O.S.No.79 of 2009. Those two applications are allowed directing to bring the depositions from the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kandukur and accordingly a letter was sent for the depositions to the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kandukur. 5. However, the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kandukur submitted a letter that the entire material part in O.S.No.15 of 2021 has been submitted to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Dis.No.88 dated 11.01.2008 for reference in A.S.No.631 of 2007. 6. Therefore, the Court below dismissed the said application holding that the material part in O.S.No.15 of 2001 was sent to the Hon’ble High Court for reference in A.S.No.631 of 2007 and the said record is available with the High Court. It was further held that though the said material record was said for reference in the said appeal, the said record cannot be treated as the record in A.S.No.631 of 2007 and, therefore, no letter can be addressed to the High Court seeking the depositions in O.S.No.15 of 2021, which are available in A.S.No.631 of 2007. Accordingly, the application was dismissed. Challenging the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has grossly erred in dismissing the petition, contrary to the settled principles of law 6 VS,J C.R.P.No.682 of 2025 and the provisions of Order XIII Rule 10(1) of the Civil Procedure Code. He further submits that Order XIII Rule 10(1) of CPC confers the power on the Court to send for the record of any other suit or proceeding and to inspect the same. Having perused the material on record, before proceeding further, it is appropriate to refer to the provisions of Order XIII Rule 10(1) and 10(2) of the CPC. Rule 10: Court may send for papers from its own records or from other courts: 10(1).The court may of its own motion, and may in its discretion upon the application of any of the parties to a suit, send for, either from its own records or from any other court, the record of any other suit or proceeding, and inspect the same. 10(2).Every application made under this rule shall (unless the court otherwise directs) be supported by an affidavit showing how the record is material to the suit in which the application is made, and that the applicant cannot without unreasonable delay or expense obtain a duly authenticated copy of the record or of such portion thereof as the applicant requires, or that the production of the original is necessary for the purposes of justice. 8. A reading of the above provisions makes it clear that the Court may on its own motion or upon the application of any other parties to the suit may send for from its own records or from any other Court, the record of any other suit or proceeding. It is also made clear that every such request shall state how the record is material to the suit in which the application is made and that 7 VS,J C.R.P.No.682 of 2025 the applicant cannot, without unreasonable delay or expense, obtain a duly authenticated copy of the record. 9. As seen from the contents of the application in which the request is sought for, the petitioners never stated as to how the acquired document is material to the present suit i.e. O.S.No.79 of 2009. It is not in dispute that such a request has been considered earlier vide Order dated 23.02.2024 directing to send for the depositions from the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kandukur, where the suit O.S.No.15 of 2021 is pending. It appears from the record that the material part in O.S.No.15 of 2021 was submitted to the High Court for reference in A.S.No.631 of 2007. 10. A perusal of the impugned order shows that although the material record in O.S.No.15 of 2001 was sent to the High Court for reference in A.S.No.631 of 2007, the said record cannot be treated as part of the record in A.S.No.631 of 2007. Generally, when an appeal is pending before the High Court, no material part of the record is sent back, even to the mother Court for any purpose. Only after disposal of the appeal, the material record would be sent to the mother Court, and not to any other Court. 11. The Court below categorically held that only after receiving record by Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kandukur the document can be sent for from that Court. The conclusions arrived at by the Court below in rejecting the request of the petitioner for sending depositions as sought for, are just, reasonable and well founded. In the light of the provisions of Order XIII Rule 8 VS,J C.R.P.No.682 of 2025 10(1) of Civil Procedure Code, the impugned order did not suffer from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file certified copies of the said documents, including the depositions of deceased Talluri Subbarayudu/DW.1 in O.S.No.15 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur, against which A.S.No.631 of 2007 is pending before this Court. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 19.12.2025. JLSR/SA