APHCQ10212992024 IN TH^ HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, the ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SgJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1020 OF 2024 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, ageinst the order dated 07-02-2024 passed in I.A.No.287/2023 in SOP No.10/2019 by the Principal Civil Judge [Senior Division], Kurnool, Kurnool District. Between: Smt.K.Uma Bai, W/o Late K.Bhikam Singh, aged about 73 years, R/o H.No.30/90, Chittari Street, K,urnool Town, Kurnool District. ...Petitioner AND Smt K.Veeru Bai, W/o Late K.Bikam Singh, aged about 70 years, R/o H NO.30/97, Chittari Street, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District. ...Respondent lA 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 to stay all further proceedings in SOP No.10/2019 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge [Senior Division],' Kurnool, Kurnool District. : Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Sravan Kumar Mannava The Court made the following; / / APHC010212992024 IN THE HIGH COURT QF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE honourable SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA niVII REVISION PETITION NO: 1020/2Q24 Between: 1.SMTX.UMA BAI, YEARS. R/0 H.NO.30/98, CHITTARI STREET, KURNOOL TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT. W/0 LATE K BHIKAM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 73 ...PETITIONER AND K VEERU BAI, W/o Late K Bikam Singh, aged about 70 years. 1.SMT . R/o H NO.30/97, Chittari Street, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District. ...RESPONDENT 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 set aside the order passed in lA No.287/2023 m SOP No. 10/2019 Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, dated 07-02- 2024 and by the Hon'ble pass lA 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 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 the Docket proceedings dated 28-03-2025 may be pleased to Suspend lt.J 2 C.R.P.No.1020 Of 2024 passed in SOP No. 10/2019 Judge, Kurnool and pass lA NO: 2 OF 20?.^ on the file of Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil 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 Suspend the Docket proceedings dated 26-06-2025 passed in SOP No. 10/2019 on the file of Hon'ble Principal Senior and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1 J U M V PRASAD Civil Judge, Kurnool Counsel for the Respondent: 1 SRAVAN KUMAR MANNAVA The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.R.P.No.l020of2024 ORDER: The present Civil Revi’sion Petition is filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 07.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.287 of 2023 in S.O.P.No.10 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. 2. The petitioner herein filed S.O.P-No.10 of 2019 seeking issuance of a succession certificate, claiming that she is the only legally wedded wife of late K.Bikam Singh. In the said S.O.P., the petitioner has already filed her chief- examination affidavit as PW1 and marked Exs.AI to A9. PW2 was also examined on her behalf. The case was posted for further evidence on behalf of the petitioner. At 3. that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.287 of 2023 seeking to amend the main S.O.P. by adding her name as “Smt.Uma Bai @ A.V.Uma Maheswari” on the ground that, at the time of fling of the above S.O.P., she had not informed her counsel that her original name is A.V.Uma Maheswari, and that after her marriage, she has also been called as Smt.K.Uma Bai, therefore, it is just and necessary to amend the petition to show her name as Smt.Uma Bai @ A.V. Uma Maheswari. The said application was dismissed by the Court below on 07.02.2024 4. on the ground that there is no evidence on record to show that the original name of the petitioner is A.V.Uma Maheswari. Challenging the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4 ’ VSJ 10 C.R.P.No.1020 of 2024 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 7. Court below ought to have appreciated that Ex.A1 is the registered Marriage Certificate issued by the Registrar of Marriages at Madras, dated 02.04.1970 and hence, the petition cannot be treated as an afterthought. In Ex.A1, it is clearly mentioned that Sri K.Bhikam Singh, S/o K.Ramchander Singh, and Srimathi Venkata Uma Maheswari D/o A.Veeraraju got married. The Court below ought to have appreciated that, in the cause title, the present name of the petitioner has been mentioned which is in common usage in the society. However, the document under Ex.AI, filed along with main S.O.P. reveals her name as Venkata Uma Maheswari, who married K.Bhikam Singh. As such the amendment sought in the cause-title to reflect her name as “K.Uma Bai @ A.V.Uma Maheswari” is neither a new fact nor an afterthought, but is borne out by the record. Therefore, the petitioner prays for the petition to be allowed. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent submit that the alleged marriage certificate was manipulated and introduced by the petitioner in the above S.O.P. and the petitioner has now developed the idea of putting-forth a false theory of having dual names. There are absolutely no grounds to believe the new theory now propounded by the petitioner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5 VS,J C.R.P.No.l020of2024 9. The S.O.P. has been filed seeking issuance of succession certificate on f' the ground that she is the legally wedded wife of late K.Bhikam Singh. To prove her case in the S.O.P., the petitioner relies on the Marriage Certificate dated 02.04.1970 marked as Ex.AI in her evidence. Now, on the basis of the said certificate, the petitioner seeks amendment of her name in the S.O.P. Since the certificate has already been marked as Ex.AI and the respondent is disputing the said document as well as the legality of the marriage itself. It is appropriate for the petitioner to adduce evidence to the extent of the said document to prove that she is also called as K.Uma Bai. Hence, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application and no interference is warranted therewith. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the 10. petitioner is at liberty to adduce further evidence to substantiate the said document/Ex.AI. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/-B PRASADA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal QiviJ Judge [Senior Division], Kurnool, Kurnool District. 2. One CC to Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Sravan’'Kumar Mannava, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies MV sree HIGH COURT DATED:11/09/2025 ORDER CRP No. 1020 OF 2024 DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS