APHC010315132025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3207] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 1589/2025; 1621; 1622 & 1623 OF 2025 Between: 1. CHODRAJU VENKATA NARASIMHA RAJU, S/O LATE SATYANARAYANA RAJU, AGE 62 YEARS. CULTIVATOR, R/O RAJULA KOTHURU, H/O TETAGUNTA, TUNI MANDAL. 2. DANTULURI SATYANARAYANAMMA,, W/O RANGA RAJU, AGED 67 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO.1-16/1, GEORGEPETA, NEELAPALLI VILLAGE, TALLAREVU MANDAL. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. CHODRAJU VENKATA RAMANA PADMAVATHI, W/O LATE CHODRAJU VENKATA PATHI RAJU, AGED 44 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE,R/O D.NO. 3-329/2, ROAD NO.6, GANGARAJU NAGAR KAKINADA RURAL MANDAL. 2. CHODRAJU SRI ANUSHA, D/O LATE CHODRAJU VENKATA PATHI RAJU, AGED 24 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO. 3-329/2, ROAD NO.6, GANGARAJU NAGAR KAKINADA RURAL MANDAL. ...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 to aggrieved by the Order dated 25.04.2025 passed in I.A. No. 222 OF 2025 IN O.S. No. 181 OF 2016, on the file of ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) PITHAPURAM, 2 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 to Grant Stay of all Further Proceedings in O.S. No. 181 of 2016 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PALLA BALU ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. DWARAMPUDI SAVITHRI The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1589, 1621, 1622 & 1623 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: CRP.No.1589 of 2025:This Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order, dated 25.04.2025 in I.A.No.222 of 2025 in O.S.No.181 of 2016, on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram (“trial Court” for short). CRP.No.1621 of 2025:This Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order, dated 25.04.2025 in I.A.No.223 of 2025 in O.S.No.181 of 2016, on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram. CRP.No.1622 of 2025:This Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order, dated 25.04.2025 in I.A.No.221 of 2025 in O.S.No.181 of 2016, on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram. CRP.No.1623 of 2025:This Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order, dated 25.04.2025 in I.A.No.220 of 2025 in O.S.No.181 of 2016, on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram. 2) Since the parties in all the Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same and the orders passed by the trial Court in Interlocutory Applications are arisen out of suit proceedings in O.S.No.181 of 2016, this Court intends to dispose of all the civil revision petitions by a common order. 4 3) Heard Sri Ballu Anil Kumar Palla, learned counsel for the petitioners and M/s. D. Savitri, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record. 4) Both the parties in all the Civil Revision Petitions will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit for convenience. 5) The petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.181 of 202016 before the trial Court. 6) The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants to grant permanent injunction while restraining the defendants and their men for ever interfering in any way with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiffs and their men and for costs of the suit. Pending the above said suit, the defendants filed I.A.Nos.220 of 2025, 223 of 2025, 222 of 2025 and 221 of 2025 in the suit seeking to reopen the evidence of 1st petitioner/1st defendant as D.W.1 to depose further evidence; to recall D.W.1 to depose his further evidence; to receive additional chief affidavit of D.W.1 and to condone the delay caused in filing all the documents into the Court. 7) On hearing both sides counsel, the learned trial Judge dismissed the said petitions. Felt aggrieved thereby, the defendants in the suit filed the present Civil Revision Petitions. 8) Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to meet the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of Court and the trial Court was not functus official at the stage 5 when the affidavits were sought to be filed, as the judgment was only reserved but not pronounced. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further contend that the proposed additional affidavit contained facts relating to a subsequent suit in O.S.No.205 of 2024 and interim orders therein, which to the root of the issue and the exclusion of the material is likely to cause grave prejudice to the petitioners and any result in a miscarriage of justice. He further submits that the acceptance of the additional affidavit would not have caused any irreparable injury to the respondents, who could have been granted a fair opportunity to cross examine or rebut the same. He finally contends that the trial Court failed to exercise its discretion judiciously and proceeded to dismiss the applications solely on technical and procedural grounds and he prayed to allow these civil revision petitions by setting aside the orders of the trial Court in I.A.Nos.220 of 2025, 223 of 2025, 222 of 2025 and 221 of 2025. 9) Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the 1st petitioner/1st defendant adopted the 2nd defendant written statement and the 1st defendant examined as D.W.1 in O.S.No.181 of 2016. The 2nd defendant filed her chief affidavit as D.W.3 but she cannot come to the witness box and offered her cross examination and lastly her chief affidavit was not pressed. The learned counsel would further contend that during the pendency of the suit, the 2nd defendant filed suit in O.S.No.205 of 2024 against respondents herein on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tuni, for permanent injunction in respect of the same property in the subject matter of suit in O.S.No.181 of 2016 and misleading the Court 6 obtained interim orders in I.A.No.371 of 2024 by filing certified copies of registered settlement deed, dated 15.12.2008 and registered sale deed, dated 15.12.2008. The petitioners herein are stated in O.S.No.205 of 2024 that they obtained loan from the bank by depositing the registered settlement deed, dated 15.12.2008 and registered sale deed, dated 15.12.2008. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents preferred CMA before the XII Additional District Judge’s Court, Pithapuram. Finally, he prayed to dismiss these Civil Revision Petitions. 10) The suit in O.S.No.181 of 2016 is filed for permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property. On behalf of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 to D.W.4 were examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.33 were marked. As per the order of the trial Court, it reveals that the learned counsel for the defendants took time for advancing his arguments on 06.12.2024, 13.12.2024, 03.01.2025, 10.01.2025, 20.01.2025 and 31.01.2025. On 31.01.2025, the trial Court reserved the suit for judgment granting liberty to file written arguments on or before 20.02.2025. Without submitting the written arguments, the learned counsel for the defendants filed I.A.No.223 of 2025 to reopen and recall the D.W.1 and filed I.A.No.221 of 2025 to receive additional documents. In I.A.No.222 of 2025 relief is sought to receive additional affidavit of D.W.1. All these Interlocutory Applications are filed on 20.02.2025. All these facts establishes that the petitioners are aware of filing of the suit in O.S.No.205 of 2024, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of 7 First Class, Tuni. But, he did not suggest about filing of the suit in O.S.No.205 of 2024 to the plaintiffs while P.W.1 was cross examined. In the trial Court by considering all these facts is of the opinion that the petitioners/defendants has suppressed all the facts about filing of the suit in O.S.No.205 of 2024 and filed the Interlocutory Applications at belated stage. The trial Court further held that sufficient reasons to allow the Interlocutory Applications are not shown. 11) Considering the material available on record, it is an admitted fact that the suit was reserved for judgment on 31.01.2025 and granted time to file written arguments on or before 20.02.2025 and thereafter petitioners/defendants filed Interlocutory Applications seeking to reopen and recall D.W.1 evidence and to receive additional documents and to receive additional chief affidavit, etc. As rightly held by the trial Court, I am also same opinion that the petitioners failed to show any sufficient reason to consider the Interlocutory Applications at the belated and as and when the evidence is closed and after hearing arguments, reserved the suit for judgment. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere into the reasoned order passed by the trial Court, as there is no infirmity or illegality in the said order and therefore all the Civil Revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed. 12) In the result, these Civil Revision Petition Nos.1589 of 2025, 1621 of 2025, 1622 of 2025 and 1623 of 2025 are dismissed. 13) There shall be no order as to costs. 8 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Dt. 07.11.2025. PGR 9 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND C.R.P.NOs.1589, 1621, 1622 & 1623 of 2025 Dt.07.11.2025 PGR