IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AM. A: >' THURSDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF MAY W? TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE O 505 i PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 3221 OF 2024 & 35 of 2025 CRP. No. 3221 of 2024: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Order dated 29-10-2024 in lA. No. 274 of 2024 in O.S. No. 403 of 2021 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge at Vizianagaram Between: 1. Kanakanala Papamma, s/o late Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged 61 years. Cultivation, R/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 2. Kankanala Srinivakumar,, S/o late Suryanarayana Hindu, aged 40 years. Cultivation, R/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 3. .Kankanala Dhanalakshmi,, D/o late Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged 36 years. Cultivation, R/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 4. Kilari Venkata Lakshmi, W/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged 35 years. Cultivation, R/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 5. Kankanala Ramanamma, W/o Late Ramarao, aged 51 yrs. Cultivation, R/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 6. Kankanala Venkataramana, W/o late Ramarao, aged 37 Cultivation, R/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 7. BOdasingi Sanyasamma, W/o Appalanaidu, aged 35 yrs. Cultivation R/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. yrs. 8. Burle Mani, W/o Srinu, aged 31 yrs, Occ; Cultivation, R/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 9. Kilari Santoshi, W/o Narayanaswamy, aged 30 yrs, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Kankanala Satyamnaidu, SK/o Late Suryanarayana, aged 40 yrs, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Kilari Satayavathi, W/o late Appalanaidu, aged 59 yrs, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Kilari Jayalaxmi, W/o Sanyasappadu, aged 55 yrs, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 10. 11. 12. AND Routhu Venkata Ramana, S/o.late Pydithalli, Hindu, aged 54 years. Cultivation, r/o.Routhupeta Village , H/o.Pedabantupalli village, Gurla Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 35 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dt 29.10.2024 in I.A.No. 273 of 2024 in O.S.No. 403 of 2021 on the court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge at Vizianagaram Between: 1. Kanakanala Papamma, W/o late Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged 61 years. Cultivation, R/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 2. Kankanala Srinivakumar, S/o late Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged 40 years. Cultivation, R/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 8. Burle Mani, W/o Srinu, aged 31 yrs, Occ; Cultivation, R/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 9. Kilari Santoshi, W/o Narayanaswamy, aged 30 yrs, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Kankanala Satyamnaidu, SK/o Late Suryanarayana, aged 40 yrs, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Kilari Satayavathi, W/o late Appalanaidu, aged 59 yrs, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Kilari Jayalaxmi, W/o Sanyasappadu, aged 55 yrs, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 10. 11. 12. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS AND Routhu Venkata Ramana, S/o.late Pydithalli, Hindu, aged 54 years. Cultivation, r/o.Routhupeta Village , H/o.Pedabantupalli village, Gurla Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 35 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dt 29.10.2024 in I.A.No. 273 of 2024 in O.S.No. 403 of 2021 on the court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge at Vizianagaram Between: 1. Kanakanala Papamma, W/o late Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged 61 years Cultivation, R/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 2. Kankanala Srinivakumar, S/o late Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged 40 years. Cultivation, R/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 3. Kankanala Dhanalakshrni,, D/o late Suryanarayana, Hindu, years. Cultivation, R/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 4. Kilari Venkata Lakshmi,, W/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged 35 Cultivation, R/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 5. Kankanala Ramanamma,, W/o late Ramarao, Hindu, aged 51 Cultivation, R/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 6. Kankanala Venkataramana,, W/o late Ramarao, Hindu, aged 37 Cultivation, R/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 7. Bodasingi Sanyasamma, W/o Appalanaidu, Hindu, aged 35 Cultivation, R/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 8. Burle Mani,, W/o Srinu, Hindu, aged 31 years. Cultivation, R/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 9. Kilari Santoshi aged 36 years. years. years. years. W/o. Narayanaswamy, Hindu, aged 30 Cultivation, r/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. years. 10. Kankanala Satyamnaidu,, S/o.late Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged 40 years. Cultivation, r/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 11. Kilari Satyavathi, , W/o.late Appalanaidu, Hindu, aged 59 years. Cultivation, r/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Kilari Jayalaxmi,, W/o.Sanyasappadu Hindu, aged 55 Cultivation, r/o.Gurla Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 12. years. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS AND Routhu Venkata Ramana, S/o.late Pydithalli, Hindu, aged 54 years. Cultivation, r/o.Routhupeta Village , H/o.Pedabantupalli village, Gurla Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF lA 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 suit in O.S.No. 403 of 2021 in the court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge at Vizianagaram. Counsel for the Petitioners : SMT. T V SRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent; SRI HARINADH NIDAMANURI The Court made the following COMMON ORDER : ■c APHC010578482024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISIONPETITIONNO: 3221/2024along with CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.35 of 2025 Between: Kanakanala Papamma and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Routhu Venkata Ramana Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.TVSRI DEVI ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Respondent: 1.HARINADH NIDAMANURI The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER Questioning the legality and correctness of common order dated 29.10.2024 passed in I.A.Nos.273 & 274 of 2024 in O.S.No.403 of 2021 by the III Additional Junior civil Judge at Vizianagaram, these Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred. ^CJ<^‘RC. CW^os.3221/2024^ 35/2025 2. Inasmuch as these Civil Revision Petitions stem order, they were heard together and order. out of a common are being disposed of by this common 3. For convenience, the parties, hereinafter will status in these Civil Revision Petitions. be referred to with their 4. The facts that led to filing of these Civil Revision brief are as under: Petitions (CRPs), in (a) The respondent no.l filed suit for declaration and injunction against the petitioners wherein she the matter was coming for no.l filed I.A.No.274 of 2024 to grant leave to file therein for the permanent was examined as P.W.l. When cross-examination of P.Ws.3 and 4, the respondent certain documents enlisted purpose of marking those documents on her behalf and I.A.No.273 of 2024 for recalling her (P.W.l) for the purpose of marking those documents. The petitioners filed counter resisting the relief sought in those petitions by filing counters inter alia contending that the explanation offered for not filing documents earlier is false, that introduction of new documents without there being any pleading in the plaint is abuse of process of iaw, that by filing the documents the respondent no.l is trying to fill up lacunae in her cross-examination evidence, which cannot be permitted, that neither the C<W^os.3221/2024 el 35/2025 3 respondent nor her vendors are parties to document no.3 and hence the petitions are liable to be dismissed. (b) The learned trial Judge, upon considering the material and upon hearing the submissions made by respective counsel for the parties, allowed both the petitions. Assailing the said common order, both these Civil Revision Petitions were filed by respondents in both the petitions. 5. The grounds urged by the petitioners challenging the common order are that the trial Court erred in not considering that the documents now sought to be introduced are not supported by any relevant pleading in the plaint, that the learned trial Judge failed to observe that the reason offered by respondent no.l is incorrect, since the writ petition wherein the said documents were filed was disposed of in the year 2013 much prior to filing of the suit in the year 2021, that the learned trial Judge failed to observe that the respondent failed to satisfy ingredients under Order 18, Rule-17A CPC and further the learned trial Judge failed to consider that neither the respondent nor her vendors are parties to the documents sought to be received. 6. 6. Heard Smt. .T .VSridevi, learned counsel for revision petitioners and Sri Harinadh Nidamanuri, learned counsel for respondent, in both the Civil Revision Petitions. ^ca€C(Ri Cm:N-os.3221/20Z4 ^ 35/2025 7. Both the learned counsel advanced arguments on par with their pleadings. 8. Perused the material submissions made by both the iearned 9. The person seeking reception of documents least satisfy twin conditions, viz., the documents the real controversy in the suit and sufficient documents along with the plaint existed. available on record and considered the counsel. at a later stage must at are necessary for deciding cause for not producing the 10. The respondent sought to introduce petitions filed before the trial Court to schedule property. The the documents enlisted in the prove title of his vendors over the plaint reason for not filing the documents along with the plaint, according to respondent, is that the said documents were sent to his in Writ Petition No.27933 of 2013, which passed by Revenue Divisional Officer, property and later those were misplaced in his counsel's office and could only be traced counsel at High Court for reference i was filed challenging the orders Vizianagaram, in respect of the plaint schedule documents recently. 11. The learned trial Judge having found the documents along with the that the reason for not filing plaint to be satisfactory and that the r' ^05.3221/2024 ol 35/2025 5 documents are necessary for deciding the real controversy in the suit, allowed both the petitions. 12. The learned trial Judge had appreciated the facts of the case in proper perspective and came to a right conclusion in allowing the petitions. The grounds of revisions and submissions made by learned counsel for revision petitioners are unsustainable and they would not persuade this Court to take a view by holding that there was any illegality or perversity committed by the learned trial Judge in allowing the petitions. 13. The Civil Revision Petitions are found to be without any merit and they are liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. It is needless to state that the petitioners are at liberty to raise tenable objections at the time of marking the documents regarding their relevancy as well as admissibility. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- G.HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The III Additional Junior Civil Judge at Vizianagaram 2. One CC to SRI. T V SRI DEVI Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. HARINADH NI DAMAN URI Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 5. THREE CD COPIES TAC HIGH COURT DATED:01/01/2025 COMMON ORDER CRP.No.3221 of 2024 & 35 OF 2025 0« SEP 2025 )g) ntSectiut^^ o DISMISSING THE BOTH C.R.Ps WITHOUT COSTS