IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 158 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court be pleased to Aggrieved by the orders of the II Additional Judge Cum, Special Mobile may Junior Civil Court at Vizianagaram in allowing in O.S.No.422/2020 vide orders Dt.23.12.2024 petitioner begs to prefer the above revision petition. I.A.No. 127/2024 the Between: 1. Yelakala Jyothi, W/o. Late Venkata Ramana, Residing at Patbikayavalasa Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh. Aged about 30 years. Village, Cheepurupalli Mandal 2. Yelakala Sharmila, D/o late Venkata Residing at Patbikayavalasa Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. Yelakala Kailash, S/o late Ramana, Aged about 12 years. village, Cheepurupalli Mandal, Venkata Ramana Aged about 8 years. Residing at Patbikayavalasa village, Cheepurupalli Mandal Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh 4. Yelakala lakshmu naidu, S/o. years, R/o. Pathaikayakayavalasa village, Cheepurupalli Vizianagaram District. not known to the plaintiff. Aged about 73 Mandal, 5. Yelakala Lakshmi, W/o. Lakshmunaidu Pathaikayakayavalasa Vizianagaram District. Aged about 53 years, R/o. CheepurupalliMandal village. / (Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 being minors represented by their petitioner No.1) ...PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS AND Althi Ramana. S/o Atchim Naidu, Hindu, aged about 32 years, Residing at Pishini Village, Ranasthalam Mandal, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF lA NO: 1 OF 2Q2fi Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated m the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pieased to stay alt further proceedings in O.S.No.422/2020 on the fiie of the II Additional Junior Civii Judge cum Speciai Mobile Court at Vizianagaram. Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. KANAKALA DEVI Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: PRASANNAKUMAR / APHC010030822025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0*0 [3332] 0fe V.:’ THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 158/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER(S) Yelakala Jyothi and others AND ...RESPONDENT Althi Ramana Counsel for the Petitloner(S): 1. KANAKALA DEVI PRASANNAKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following order: Aggrieved by the order dated 23.12.2024 passed in Interlocutory Application No. 127 of 2024 in Original Suit No.422 of 2020 on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Special Mobile Court at Vijayanagaram, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I 2 The respondent herein being the plaintiff has filed O.S.No.422 of 2020 2. on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Special Mobile Court, Vijayanagaram for recovery of amount against the estate of the deceased Yelakala Venkata Ramana in the hands of the petitioners herein being the defendants in the said suit. The petitioners/defendant s contested the said suit by way of filing written statement contending that the deceased Venkata Ramana is having old aged parents and they are also Class-1 legal representatives of the deceased Venkata Ramana and without adding them as parties to the suit, the present suit is not at all maintainable and the suit has to be dismissed for mis-joinder of necessary and proper parties. Pursuant to the cross examination of P.Ws.1 to 3, the respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No.127 of 2024 permitting him to add the parents of the deceased Venkata Ramana as defendant Nos.4 and 5 in the said suit. The Court below has allowed the said petition permitting the respondent/plaintiff to add the parents of the deceased Venkata Ramana as defendants Nos.4 and 5 in the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/defendants filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. Heard Sri K.Devi Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision, contended that the respondent/plaintiff filed the application after framing the issues and after cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 3 at the fag end of the trial with a view to drag on the suit proceedings. He 3 further submitted that though a specific stand has been taken in the written statement that the suit is not maintainable without adding the mother father of the borrower, instead of filing the application to implead them parties at that stage, the application is filed after completion of cross examination of P.Ws.1 to 3. He further submitted that the impugned order not supported by any reasons and the Court below without even looking into and as IS the defence taken in the counter has allowed the Interlocutory application erroneously. If the impugned order subsists, it affects the rights of the petitioners/defendants, as such, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition, dismissing the I.A.No.127 of 2024 in O.S.No.422 of 2020 on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Special Mobile Court at Vizianagaram. 5. Perused the material on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. The suit vide O.S.No.422 of 2020 has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of amount and the petitioners herein are the defendants in the said suit. In the written statement, a categorical stand has been taken by the petitioners herein to the effect that the mother and father of the deceased are necessary parties and they should also be added as party defendants to the suit. The contention that has been raised and urged by the petitioners before the Court below and in the present Revision that the plaintiff, instead of filing implead application at appropriate stage, has filed the 4 examination of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the application at the belated stage after cross has been allowed by the Court below. As could be seen from the record same mother and father of the deceased borrower have never questioned the said order. The defendant Nos.1 to 3, who has taken a specific stand to implead the father and mother of the deceased borrower as defendant Nos.4 and 5 in their counter/written statement, now being questioned the said order. The Court has dealt the application in a right perspective. No valid legal grounds have been raised warranting interference of this Court. the In view of the above, the Court below has rightly allowed the application and there is no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the Court below. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no 8. order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd /- P. VINOD KUMAR REGISTER SECTION OFFICER 1. The II Additional Junior Civil Judge cum Special Mobile Court at Vizianagaram. 2. One CC to Sri Kanakala Devi Prasannakumar, Advocate [OPUC] ^ AnfaravathT Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 4. Three CD Copies ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY// To, at Pmg TF T 1 HIGH COURT DATED:01/05/2025 ORDER ^ 0 S AU5 m ^ . ^renl SecuoD ^ CRP.No.158 of 2025 *3: DISMISSING THE CRP