1 VS,J CRP.No.855 of 2025 APHC010138412025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] SATURDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 855/2025 Between: 1. CHINTALAPATI RADHA, W/O VENKATA CHALAPATHI RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE, R/O DOOR NO. 11-5-43/1, NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE, RAGHURAM NAGAR, SATTENAPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. KAJA VARA LAKSHMI, W/O V.S.R.C. MURTHY. HINDU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE, R/O DOOR NO. 1-273, SANTHA ROAD, GUDLAVALLERU VILLAGE MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. . 3. LVATURI PADMAVATHI, W/O M.V. KRISHNA HINDU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCCHOUSE WIFE. R/O FLAT NO. 308, JAI DURGA TOWERS KAMAYYATHOPU BANDAR ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. NANDIVADA SANTHI SRI, W/O NARASIMHA RAO. HINDU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE. C/O POST OFFICE, GOPAVARAM, MUSUNOOR MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. KARLAPUDI JANAKI, W/O K.S.R.K. MURTHY. HINDU, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RTD. EMPLOYEE R/O FLAT NO. 207, SRI MAHALAKSHMI TOWERS, BOSE ROAD, 5TH LANE, DEVAPURAM, 2 VS,J CRP.No.855 of 2025 GUNTUR. 2. KUNCHANAPALLI RAMA SEKHAR, S/O LATE VENKATA SATYANARAYANA RAO, R/O SAN FRANCISCO, U.S.A. 3. KUNCHANAPALLI SUDHA MADHURI, REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER, SANAMPUDI KRISHNA CHAITANYA S/O MALLIKHARJUNA RAO, R/O FLAT NO. 203, SRINIVASA TOWERS, 1STLANE, N.G.O. COLONY, NARASARAOPET TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT 4. KUNCHANAPALLI PANKAJAM, W/O KAJA MURALI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RETD EMPLOYEE R/O FLAT NO. 513, ANANDA PLAZA APARTMENTS NEAR SAID DEGREE COLLAGE, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR THOTAPALEM, VIZIANAGARAM 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 pleased toThe above-named Petitioners beg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the docket order dated 04.02.2025 passed in I.A.No. 76 of 2021 in O.S.No. 11 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali 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 IA NO: 2 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 IA NO: 3 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 may be pleased to extend the interim order dated 10.04.2025 as well further extended on 20.06.2025, 27.06.2025, 04.07.2025 and 25.07.2025 in C.R.P. No. 855 of 2025 till the disposal of the CRP and pasS 3 VS,J CRP.No.855 of 2025 IA NO: 4 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 may be pleased to extend the interim order granted earlier on 10.04.2025 in C.R.P. No. 855 of 2025 till the disposal of the CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. G PADMAVATHI SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SIVA RAMA KRISHNA KOLLURU 2. The Court made the following: 4 VS,J CRP.No.855 of 2025 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners/plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 challenging the order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, dated 04.02.2025 in I.A.No.76 of 2021 in O.S.No.11 of 2020, whereby, the Court below allowed the application filed by the 3rd respondent herein under Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’) to permit her to represent the matter through her GPA holder. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: (a) For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. All the plaintiffs and the defendants are siblings and are children of late Kunchnanapalli Venkata Satyanarayana Rao and late Venkata Sarojini Devi. The father of the parties, during his lifetime, purchased the suit schedule property to an extent of 578.8 square yards by way of a registered sale deed dated 24.01.1979 and during his life time, has enjoyed the possession of the same. After his demise on 01.10.1998, the schedule property devolved upon the mother of the parties and after her death on 01.10.2019, the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.11 of 2020 before the Court below for partition of the plaint schedule property into 7 equal shares and to allot 5 such shares to the plaintiffs. 5 VS,J CRP.No.855 of 2025 (b) Pending the said suit, the wife of the 2nd defendant by name ‘Kunchanapalli Sudha Madhuri’ who resides in USA filed I.A.No.77 of 2021 to implead her as a party in the suit and I.A.No.76 of 2021 under Rule 32 of the Rules, to permit her to represent in the suit through ‘Sanampudi Krishna Chaitanya’ as she has executed a GPA in his favour on 21.10.2019. The Court below, vide order dated 04.02.2025 allowed the application filed by the proposed party, permitting her to represent the matter through her GPA holder. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 filed this revision petition. 3. When this petition came up for admission on 10.04.2025, this Court has granted stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.11 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, initially for a period of four (4) weeks, which was thereafter extended from time to time. 4. Heard M/s. G. Padmavathi Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. K. Siva Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 5. Admittedly, O.S.No.11 of 2020 is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs against the defendants for partition of the suit schedule property into seven equal shares and to allot five such shares to the petitioners/plaintiffs. In the said suit, the wife of the 2nd defendant – 3rd respondent herein, who lives in USA, filed an application under Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice seeking 6 VS,J CRP.No.855 of 2025 permission of the Court below to permit her to contest the suit through her GPA holder by name ‘Sanampudi Krishna Chaitanya’. The said application was allowed by the Court below vide impugned order dated 04.02.2024, wherein it is observed as under: “…The genuineness of the claim can be decided at later stage. However, the petitioner has to be permitted to represent the proposed party as she is residing at USA And opportunity is to be given to her represent the matter through her GPA holder. The remaining aspects of the genuineness of the clam made by the petition can be decided during the trial and her entitlement to implead as a party also decided in IA.77/2021. 6. It can be seen that the Court below has circumspectly passed the impugned order permitting the 3rd respondent to be represented by the GPA holder and that it specifically observed that the genuineness of the claim made by the 3rd respondent would be decided during trial and in the application filed for impleading her i.e. I.A.No.77 of 2021. It is not in dispute that the 3rd respondent resides in USA and it is very much essential to permit her to represent the matter through her GPA holder. Denying permission to the 3rd respondent to represent the matter through her GPA holder would amount to abuse of process of law and would affect her fundamental rights. As such, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the Court below on 04.02.2024 in I.A.No.76 of 2021 in O.S.No.11 of 2020 need not be interfered with by exercising the supervisory power vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7 VS,J CRP.No.855 of 2025 7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:22.11.2025 Gss