APHC010446472025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 2239 & 2241/2025 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2239/2025 Between: 1. B RAJAMMA, W/O. B. KODANDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, HINDU, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. TIRMULAIAHPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. B. KODANDA REDDY,, S/O. LATE CHENGA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, HINDU, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. TIRMULAIAHPALLI VILLAGE AND POST. VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. B. SUBRAMANYAM REDDY,, S/O. KODANDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, HINDU, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. TIRMULAIAHPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. B. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY,, S/O. B. KODANDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, HINDU, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. TIRMULAIAHPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. D NAGI REDDY, S/O. LATE D. MUNIKRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, HINDU, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. TIRMULAIAHPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR 2 DISTRICT. 2. D NARASIMHA REDDY, , S/O. LATE MUNIKRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, HINDU, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. TIRMULAIAHPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M DELHI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V SUDHAKAR REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2241/2025 Between: 1. B RAJAMMA, W/O. B. KODANDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, HINDU, OCC.CULTIVATION, R/O. TIRMULAIAHPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. B. KODANDA REDDY,, S/O. LATE CHENGA REDDY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, HINDU, OCC.CULTIVATION, R/O. TIRMULAIAHPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. B. SUBRAMANYAM REDDY,, S/O. KODANDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, HINDU, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O. TIRMULAIAHPALLI VILLAGE AND. POST, VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. B. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY,, S/O. B. KODANDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, HINDU, OCC.CULTIVATION, R/O. TIRMULAIAHPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. D NAGI REDDY, S/O. LATE D. MUNIKRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, HINDU, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O. 3 TIRMULAIAHPALLI VILLAGE AND. POST, VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. D NARASIMHA REDDY, S/O. LATE MUNIKRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, HINDU, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O. TIRMULAIAHPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M DELHI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V SUDHAKAR REDDY The Court made the following: 4 Common Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. These revisions arise against the common order in I.A.Nos.394 and 395 of 2025 in O.S.No.562 of 2016 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Divison), Puttur, dated 11.08.2025. 3. The revision petitioners are the defendants in the suit and the petitioners in the above said I.As. The respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit and the respondents in the above said I.As. The suit is for permanent injunction with respect to the items shown in the suit schedule property. During the course of trial Ex.B12 was marked, which is the proceedings of the RDO dated 20.07.2023 against the issuance of Pattadhar Pass Book and title deed by the Tahsildar. The said Tahsildar proceedings was also marked as Ex.A11. This Ex.B12 was marked on 21.08.2023 during the cross-examination of D.W.1. The defendants side evidence was closed on 12.04.2025 and the matter was posted for arguments on 06.05.2025 and it is at the stage of submission of arguments by both the counsels before the trial Court. While so, the Joint Collector Chittoor passed an order dated 16.05.2025 by way of revision against the order of the learned RDO, Chittoor, dated 20.07.2023 (Ex.B12) in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.1.43 cents in Sy.No.171/8 of Makamambapuram Village in Vedurukuppam Mandal. 5 4. It is the case of the defendants that the said proceedings of the Joint Collector dated 16.05.2025 is not available during the course of trial for marking the same as it is dated 16.05.2025 and the Ex.B12 was marked on 21.08.2023. Since, the said Revenue Proceedings of the Tahsildar, the RDO and the Joint Collector deal with some of the items of the suit schedule properties, it is their case to bring it on record for the purpose of deciding the main suit before the trial Court. Since, the said documents of the proceedings of the Joint Collector dated 16.05.2025 is not yet available by the time of marking of Ex.B12, and soon after passing of the orders by the Joint Collector, they filed the above said I.As to recall the D.W1 to mark the said documents. 5. But the trial Court makes an observation for dismissing the above said I.As dated 11.08.2025 that “the said proceedings of the Joint Collector, Chittoor, is not sustainable under the law”, which is beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the trial Court to make such an observation. Since the corresponding proceedings passed by the respective revenue authorities were already marked, it would also be appropriate for the order of the Joint Collector, Chittoor, to be marked in the suit proceedings, as the suit is still pending. The trial Court ought to have entertained the said document to be marked for only limited purpose, as it is arising out of the orders passed by the RDO, and the suit schedule properties are being dealt with by the revenue authorities consistently in the above said orders of the Tahsildar, the RDO and the Joint Collector respectively. The trial Court ought to have seen that it is necessary to be marked. 6 6. In view of the above said reasons, the common order passed by the trial Court dated 11.08.2025 is set aside. These Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly allowed. The trial Court shall permit the said document/ proceedings of the Joint Collector, Chittoor, dated 16.05.2025 to be marked through D.W.1, giving liberty to the plaintiffs to cross-examine the D.W.1 on that aspect. The trial Court shall decide the suit proceedings uninfluenced by any of the observations in these revisions and it shall be decided on its own merits. Both the parties shall cooperate for early disposal of the suit proceedings. The recalling of the witness and cross-examination shall be completed within a period of one (01) month and thereafter the matter shall go on for arguments and for final disposal. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN 19.09.2025 PNS