IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI^^^^J^^^ THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2923 OF 2024 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 in l.A.No.422/2024 in A.S.No. 11/2023, dt. 24.10.2024, and permit the petitioner to file additional evidence in A.S.No.11/2023 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Parvatipuram. O A ^ CL iVl o m o A Petition Between: Ganivada Krishnaveni, W/o. Satyanarayana, Aged 60 years. Household Ramabadhrapuram village aind mandai. Duties, Chintala Veedhi Vizianagaram District. I ...PETITIONER AND Ganivada Puma Sai, W/o. late Rameswara Rao, Aged 30 years. Household Duties, D/o. Pudi Dalinaidu, Sambara Village and Post, Makkuva Mandai, Parvatipuram Manyam District. Ganivada Sriram Sandeep Naidu, S/o. Late Rameswara Rao, Aged 9 years, D/o Pudi Dalinaidu, Sambara Village and Post, Makkuva Mandai Parvatipuram Manyam District. (2"^^ Respondent being minor is rep by his mother and natural guardian the 1®^ Respondent) 1. 2. ...RESPONDENTS 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 WK r ■ ' pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in A.S.No. 11/2023 on the J file of the 11 Additional District Judge, Parvatipuram. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. SAI NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI TADDI NAGESWARA RAO The Court made the following: § 'W B m !k APHC010498462024 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 REVISION PETITION NO: 2923/2024 Between; Ganivada Krishnaveni ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT{S) Ganivada Puma Sai and others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.GSAI NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 .TADDl NAGESWARA RAO The Court made the following order; Aggrieved by the order dated Application No.422 of 2024 in Appeal of II Additional District Judge at Parvathipuram, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution 24.10.2024 passed in Interlocutory Suit No.11 of 2023 on the file of the Court of India. 2 * ' 2, The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the defendants in Original Suit Civil Judge. Bobbili. immovable properties of her share to her and put her i - respondents herein th^ are No.82 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Senior The petitioner/plaintiff filed the said suit for partition df son into three equal shares and to allot one such same. The defendants filed in possession of the written statement stating that the the defendants suit filed by the plaintiff is intended to harass for amount payable to her since defendant No.1 demanded lawfully, as her husband discharged the debts of plaintiff as admitted by her, as such, the plaintiff is not entitled to suit for partial partition maintainable. any share in the suit property and the leaving other After hearing both properties of family is also no sides, the trial Court decreed the suit preliminarily dividing the suit schedule metes and bounds and out of the plaintiff and the properties into three equal shares with three shares. one share shall be given to the Nos.1 and 2. Against filed Appeal Suit vide remaining is to be allotted to defendants the said judgment and decree, the defendants on the file of the Court of II During the A.S.No.11 of 2023 Parvathipuram. Additional District Judge at course of further hearing of respondent side herein/plaintiff filed arguments in the said Appeal Suit, the petitioner l■A.No.422 of 2024 in A.S.No.11 of 2023 documents seeking leave to file additional and marking the said as additional evidence exhibits on her behalf. The documents as said appUca^on was dismissed on the ground that 3 the appeal, the petitioner chose to file in the Aggrieved by the same, the after disposal of the matter, during these documents which of the trial Court in the appeal stage present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plain tiff. cannot be permissible to fill up the gaps findings learned counsel for the petitioner and Heard Sri G.Sai Narayanarao Sri Taddi Nageswararao, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision, contended that the petitioner does not have delaying the appeal, as the petitioner has the judgment in her favour and the additional evidence is only to aid to decide 4. vested interest in any and decree m the case . He further prejudice will be caused to the the Civil Revision Petition can be submitted that if the additional evidence is accepted, no respondents and for substantial justice being allowed under Order XLl. Rule 27 done CPC. On the other hand, Sri T.Nageswara rao, learned counsel, justified the that the said order does not warrant any 5. orders impugned and submitted interference of this Court. record and considered the submissions made Perused the material on by learned counsel for the parties 6. ' i, 7. Admittedly the suit vide O.S.No.82 of 2017 is filed for partition of the properties of deceased Rameswararao, who is the son of plaintiff, husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant No.2. The said suit was decreed preliminarily. Aggrieved by the said decree, the defendants filed A.S.No.11 of 2023 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge at Parvathipuram. in the said Appeal Suit, the plaintiff/petitioner filed Interlocutory Application No.422 of 2024 for filing additional documents as additional evidence. 8. Perusal of the record would indicate that the reason for filing the additional documents is not based on any pleadings or evidence let in during It is well settled law that in the course of evidence before the trial Court, absence of pleadings, any amount of evidence will not help the the petitioner/plaintiff invented these documents only at the time of arguments before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court dismissed application holding that the suit was filed in the year 2017 and it was disposed of on 30.01.2023 i.e., nearly after six years and during the said six years, the petitioner failed to secure and place those documents before the Trial and there is due negligence on the part of the petitioner and after disposal the matter only during the appeal, the petitioner chose to file these documents which cannot be permissible to fill up the gaps in the findings of the trial Court in the appeal stage. The first appellate Court has rightly dismissed the said application by giving cogent reasons andjhis Court did not find any illegality. party. Further the said Court of 5 perversity or impropriety in the said order. No valid and justifiable grounds are raised or urged in the present revision warranting the interference of this Court, hence, this revision is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. 9. Sd/- P. VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The iFXBditional District Judge, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District. 2. The Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, Viziangaram District. 3. OneCCto Sri G. Sai Narayana Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Three C.D. Copies. Pmg Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:01/05/2025 ORDER CRP.No.2923 of 2024 % ^ 2 UUt 20?5 f •a^ . Current Section . DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION