APHC010299832025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] FRIDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1379/2025 Between: 1. P SASIREKHA, W/O M. PURUSHOTHARN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.23-13-177, LB NAGAR, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. P RAJYALAKSHMI, W/O P. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE RESIDING AT D.NO.13-7-886C, KORLAGUNTA, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT 2. P HARI KUMAR, S/O LATE P. SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, BUSINESS RESIDING AT D.NO.13-7-884C, KORLAGUNTA, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT 3. P TARAKAPRABHU, S/O LATE P. SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. BUSINESS RESIDING AT D.NO.13-7-884B, KORLAGUNTA, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAWAN KUMAR MALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NJS,J C.R.P No.1379 of 2025 2 The Court made the following Order: The present revision petition is filed, aggrieved by the orders dated 05.03.2025 in I.A No.201 of 2024 in O.S No.81 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the learned X Additional District Judge, Tirupathi. 2. The petitioner herein is arrayed as defendant No.1 in the said suit. The respondent No.1 herein filed the said suit against the petitioner/defendant No.1 and respondent Nos.2 and 3/defendant Nos.2 and 3, for partition of the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares by metes and bounds, with reference to the good and bad qualities and allot one share to the plaintiff and put her in separate possession and enjoyment of the same. 3. The petitioner/defendant No.1 filed written statement, and contesting the matter. It is her case that the respondent No.1/plaintiff is not the daughter of late P.Subramanyam and P.Krishnaveni, that she is the daughter of one H.Rammohan and Dhanamma, who is the younger sister of P.Krishnaveni and further that the petitioner herein and respondent Nos.2 and 3/defendant Nos.2 and 3 are children of late P.Subramanyam and P.Krishnaveni and they have succeeded the plaint schedule properties. 4. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/defendant No.1 filed the above said I.A under Order XVI Rule 1 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for issuance of summons to the witnesses whose details are set out therein to produce the documents and give evidence in order to sustain her case that the respondent No.1/plaintiff is daughter of H.Rammohan. The said application was opposed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff by filing counter. 5. The learned X Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, after considering the matter, dismissed the said I.A. against which the present revision petition is filed. NJS,J C.R.P No.1379 of 2025 3 6. Despite service of notice, the respondentNo.1/plaintiff did not take steps for entering appearance. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions to the effect that the order under challenge is not sustainable for the various grounds raised in the memorandum of revision. He submits that the learned Trial Court went wrong in concluding that during the cross-examination of DW.1, she is confronted with the positive photographs and she admitted that the persons in the said photograph are her family members. He submits that the petitioner/defendant No.1 had never admitted the respondent No.1/plaintiff as her sister. He submits that, it is the specific case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1/plaintiff that she is not daughter of late P.Subramanyam and P.Krishnaveni and therefore, the question of petitioner’s admission does not arise at all. 8. The learned counsel further submits that in order to substantiate the petitioner’s case, I.A No.201 of 2024 was filed seeking to summon the witnesses i.e., 1) Branch Manager, Canara Bank, SD Layout, Tirupati and 2) Branch Manager, Tirupati Co-operative Bank Limited, Tirupati, with reference to the loans availed by P.Subramanyam, even as per the case of the plaintiff, as set out in the plaint; 3) The Head Teacher, SMMSO Primary School for production and giving evidence with regard to Study Certificate issued to the respondent No.1/plaintiff; and 4) The Executive Officer, Group Temples, Sri Mitta Malleswaraswamy Temple, Pulivendula for production and giving evidence with regard to the marriage of the respondent No.1/plaintiff. However, the learned District Judge, without considering the matter in the proper perspective, dismissed the I.A. in question. He submits that by examining the said witnesses with reference to the documents mentioned in the petition, the truth or otherwise of the pleas taken by the respondent No.1 can be adjudicated. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks to allow the revision petition. NJS,J C.R.P No.1379 of 2025 4 9. On an appreciation of the submissions, the point that arises for consideration is “Whether the order under challenge is liable to be interfered in the facts and circumstances of the case?” 10. At the outset, it may be appropriate to note that the learned District Court passed the order under challenge in a slipshod manner. It should have examined the matter, in the light of the specific stand taken in the written statement. The petitioner/defendant No.1 had filed the application in question, duly setting out details of the witnesses and purpose for which they are sought to be summoned. It should have appreciated that by summoning the said witnesses, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent No.1/plaintiff and in fact, an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses sought to be summoned would also be afforded to the respondent No.1/plaintiff. The very fact that the respondent No.1/plaintiff did not choose to enter appearance, despite service of notice in the present proceedings, would go to indicate that they are serious in opposing the request of the petitioner/respondent No.1. Be that as it may. 11. So far as, summoning the Branch Manager, Tirupati Co-operative Bank Limited, Tirupati, or Branch Manager, Canara Bank, is concerned, it may not be much assistance and therefore, summoning of the said witnesses is not necessary. 12. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the opinion that the order under revision rejecting the request for summoning the other witnesses is not just or tenable. 13. Therefore, I.A No.201 of 2024 is allowed in part. The learned District Judge, shall take steps for summoning the witnesses i.e., 1) The Head Teacher, SMMSO Primary School; and 2) The Executive Officer, Group Temples, Sri Mitta Malleswaraswamy Temple, Pulivendula, in accordance with law for examination and recording oral and documentary evidence. NJS,J C.R.P No.1379 of 2025 5 14. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:05.12.2025 Ksj