APHC010915492017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: 1. VEERANKI RAMA DEVI, W/O.VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O.JAWAHAR STREET, VIDYADHARAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 1. ANKEM NAGA AMALA SWAMY DIED, S/O. LATE KESAVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. ANKEM KRISHNAVENI DIED, 3. PAMARTHI PARVATHI, W/O.JANIKIRAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O. VIDYADHARAPURARN, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. BOLLIKONDA PRASAD, S/O.NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED 57 YEARS, R/O.RAMPACHODAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. BOLLIKONDA ANIL KUMAR, S/O.PRASAD TO THE PETITIONER, AGED 37 YEARS, R/O.RAMPACHODAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6. BOLLIKONDA AJAY KUM YEARS, R/O.RAMPACHODAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES TO THE ABOVE REVISION PETITION) 7. ANKEM MADHAVI LATHA, W/O. NAGA AMALA SWAMY, AGED 47 YEARS, R/O D.NO. MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 8. ANKEM NAGA AVINASH, S/O. NAGA AMALA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, D.NO.15/546 MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 9. ANKEM AMALA LAKSHMI SAI, S/O. NAGA AMALA SWAM YEARS, D.NO. 15/546 MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the pleased to IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 6502/2017 VEERANKI RAMA DEVI, W/O.VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O.JAWAHAR STREET, VIDYADHARAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND ANKEM NAGA AMALA SWAMY DIED, S/O. LATE KESAVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O.DAVOJIPALEM, PEDANA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ANKEM KRISHNAVENI DIED, - PAMARTHI PARVATHI, W/O.JANIKIRAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O. VIDYADHARAPURARN, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA BOLLIKONDA PRASAD, S/O.NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED 57 YEARS, R/O.RAMPACHODAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI BOLLIKONDA ANIL KUMAR, S/O.PRASAD TO THE PETITIONER, AGED 37 YEARS, R/O.RAMPACHODAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI BOLLIKONDA AJAY KUMAR, S/O.PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O.RAMPACHODAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES TO THE ABOVE REVISION PETITION) ANKEM MADHAVI LATHA, W/O. NAGA AMALA SWAMY, AGED 47 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 15/546-132, OLD A.P.H.B. COLONY, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ANKEM NAGA AVINASH, S/O. NAGA AMALA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, D.NO.15/546-132, OLD A.P.H.B COLONY, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ANKEM AMALA LAKSHMI SAI, S/O. NAGA AMALA SWAM YEARS, D.NO. 15/546-132, OLD A.P.H.B. COLONY, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3457] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N VEERANKI RAMA DEVI, W/O.VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O.JAWAHAR STREET, VIDYADHARAPURAM, ...PETITIONER ANKEM NAGA AMALA SWAMY DIED, S/O. LATE KESAVA RAO, R/O.DAVOJIPALEM, PEDANA MANDAL, PAMARTHI PARVATHI, W/O.JANIKIRAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O. VIDYADHARAPURARN, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA BOLLIKONDA PRASAD, S/O.NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED 57 YEARS, R/O.RAMPACHODAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI BOLLIKONDA ANIL KUMAR, S/O.PRASAD TO THE PETITIONER, AGED 37 YEARS, R/O.RAMPACHODAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI AR, S/O.PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O.RAMPACHODAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES TO THE ABOVE REVISION PETITION) ANKEM MADHAVI LATHA, W/O. NAGA AMALA SWAMY, AGED 47 132, OLD A.P.H.B. COLONY, ANKEM NAGA AVINASH, S/O. NAGA AMALA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 132, OLD A.P.H.B COLONY, ANKEM AMALA LAKSHMI SAI, S/O. NAGA AMALA SWAMY, AGED 25 132, OLD A.P.H.B. COLONY, ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the High Court may be 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRPMP 8343 OF 2017 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.,32 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the IX Additional District Judge (FTC), Krishna, Machilipatnam pending disposal of the above Revision Petition IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pleased to bring the proposed Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 as legal representatives of 1st Respondent in the Main C.R.P. No. 6502 of 2017 as well as in all interlocutory Applications and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MATADA YUVASIVA SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T S ANAND The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6502 OF 2017 ORDER : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.09.2017 passed by the learned IX Additional District Judge (FTC), Krishna, Machilipatnam in IA.No.488 of 2018 in OS.No.32 of 2009. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the plaintiff in main suit and the suit is filed for partition. The 1st respondent filed IA.No.488 of 2017seeking to bring on record certain documents. The learned IX Additional District Judge (FTC), Krishna, Machilipatnam allowed the said petition and permitted the petitioner therein to receive the documents and mark those documents as exhibits on behalf of the petitioner therein. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the learned Judge is devoid of merits and there is no reasoning assigned as to how the petitioner is entitled for the said relief. It is also submitted that certain documents which are proposed to be marked are subsequent to filing of the suit, such as registered gift deed dated 02.04.2013 and certain other documents which are subsequent to filing of the writ petition could not have been permitted to be marked. It is also submitted that the suit was filed in the year 2009 and the application for bringing on record additional documents was filed after eight years i.e., in the year 2017. It is also submitted that the petitioner is seriously contesting the receipt of documents and the only reason assigned for filing these documents at a 4 belated stage is that the petitioner had mixed up these documents along with old papers, as such, could not submit the said documents along with written statement. It is also submitted that certain documents which are unregistered are also directed to be taken on record for the purpose of marking. During pendency of the present Civil Revision Petition, the 1st respondent passed away and his legal representatives are brought on record. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the documents which are proposed to be marked can be marked subject to objection, proof and relevancy. It is also submitted that the suit for partition has been pending from the year 2009 onwards and the petitioner sought to bring on record certain documents which are registered sale deeds of the year 2001, 2002, 1995, 2009 and 2013. The other documents relating to the property are in the form of pattar passbooks and the revenue receipts, tax receipts, water tax receipts, house tax receipts etc., These documents would be marked any way subject to proof and relevancy. The interlocutory application was filed when the matter was taken up for evidence. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the material on record. 6. Considering the submissions that the interlocutory application is filed when the evidence of plaintiff is completed and coming up for defendant side evidence. The learned Judge exercised his discretion and granted 5 one more opportunity to the petitioner and which was also observed in the order that the genuinity or otherwise of the documents would be decided in the main suit. No valid grounds are made out in interfering with the well considered order. 7. With these observations, the present Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. Considering that the suit is of the year 2009, there shall be a direction to the learned Judge to endeavour to complete the trial within a period of six months for disposal of the main suit. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N KGM 6 280 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6502 OF 2017 Dated 25.11.2025 KGM