APHC010456392021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1280/2021 Between: 1. GADDE SRINIVASA RAO, S/O LATE JAGANMOHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O MADHURANAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. GADDE KOTESWARA RAO, S/o Venkataramaiah, Aged about 76 years, R/o D.No.40-6/2-17, Opp. Siddartha Public School, Mogalrajpuram, Vijayawada_520010. 2. Gadde Suresh Babu, S/o Koteswara Rao, Aged about 52 years, R/o.D.No.40-6/2-17, Opp: Siddartha Public School, Mogalrajpuram, Vijayawada. ...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 I.A. No. 527 of 2019 in O.S.No. 378 of 2014 dated 20-02-2020 on the file of the VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, and allow the petitioner to amend the plaint in O.S.No. 378 of 2014 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 2 stay all further proceedings in O.S.No. 378 of 2014 dated 20-02-2020 on the file of the VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 bring the proposed respondent no.2 i.e Gadde suresh babu S/o Koteswara rao, aged. 52 years, R/o. 40-6/2-17, Opp. Siddartha public school, Mogalrajpuram, Vijayawada on record as respondent no.2/Lrs of the deceased respondent no.1 in the above CRP and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SUNKARA RAJENDRA PRASAD 3 The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner/ plaintiff has filed the present Civil Revision Petition challenging the orders dated 20.02.2020 in I.A.No.527 of 2019 in O.S.No..378 of 2014 on the file of the VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. 2. The petitioner/ plaintiff filed O.S.No.378 of 2014 against the respondent / defendant herein for specific performance of contract of sale dated 05.02.2012 in respect of plaint A, B and C schedule properties under a registered sale deeds. Originally, the petitioner/plaintiff has purchased the land as described in the plaint schedule property. The respondent/ defendant intended to retain plot Nos. 36 to 40 and 61 to 65 as per plaint and reflected in sale deed dated 05.02.2012 along with details of the part payment of the sale agreement. Pending the said suit, having identified that the petitioner / plaintiff at Page No.4 Para No.9 of the plaint has inadvertently mentioned that the defendant decided to retain Plot numbers 50 to 54 instead of 61 to 65 and has filed I.A.No.527 of 2019 under Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 of CPC requesting the trial Court to carry out the amendment of the said Plot Nos. in Para No.9 of Page No.4. 3. The respondent/ defendant has filed a counter denying the same stating that there are exchange of notices prior to filing of the suit on 06.09.2014 and 12.09.2014 wherein the petitioner has mentioned the plot numbers as 50, 51, 52, 53 and 54, but not 61 to 65 as in the said application. 4 4. Considering the submissions made by the respondent / defendant, the trial Court dismissed the I.A.No.527 of 2019 filed by the petitioner / plaintiff by orders dated 20.02.2020 stating that as rightly contended by the counsel for respondent in the two notices referred supra, it is mentioned as that the defendant decided to retain plot Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 and 54. 5. Challenging the said dismissal order dated 20.02.2020 in I.A.No.527 if 2019 in O.S.No.378 of 2014, the present civil revision petition has been preferred. 6. When the CRP came up for admission, this Court passed the following interim order: “There shall be interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.378 of 2014 dated 20.02.2021 on the file of the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada until further orders”. 7. On perusal of the plaint filed by the petitioner, it is observed that except in Paragraph No.9 at Page No. 4 in all other paragraphs as well as the plaint schedule of the property, it was referred as Plot Nos. 61 to 65. In view of the same, the trial Court ought not to have considered the legal notices exchanged between the parties prior to the filing of the plaint. It is pertinent to note that except in Paragraph No. 9 in Page No. 4 of the plaint, nowhere it is mentioned as Plot Nos. 50 to 54 and in the plaint schedule, it is specifically mentioned as Plot Nos. 61 to 65. 8. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the orders passed by the trial Court are liable to be set aside. 5 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 20.02.2020 in I.A.No.527 of 2019 in O.S.No.378 of 2014 on the file of the VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. As the suit is of the year 2014, this Court feels it appropriate to direct the trial Court to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one (1) year from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 25.09.2025 KA 6 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1280/2021 Date: 25.09.2025 KA