APHC010347582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3207] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1928/2025 Between: 1. RAYAPATI SRINIVASA RAO (DIED), (DIED) 2. RAYAPATI SUJANI, W/O. RAYAPATI SRINIVASA RAO AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 4-4-63 1ST LANE, CHANDRAMOULI NAGAR, GUNTUR. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. GULLAPALLI VEEREN CHAKRAVARTHY, , S/O. SUBBA RAO AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O. CHANDRAMOULI RIAGAR GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. GULLAPALLI RAJYA LAKSHMI, W/O. SUBBA RAO AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 3-30-11/4, 5TH LANE BRUNDAVAN GARDENS, GUNTUR. 3. GULLAPALLI SUBBA RAO, , S/O. LATE BASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O. CHANDRAMOULI NAGAR GUNTUR. 4. MYNENI COTTONS, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR MYNENI RAM PRASAD 5. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS DISTRICT COLLECTOR GUNTUR ...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 to begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition, having been aggrieved by the Order dated 06-05-2025 passed in I.A.No.263 of 2025 in O.S.NO. 744 OF 2012, on the file of 1ST Addl. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Guntur, 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 to dispense with the Certified Copy of the order dated 06-05- 2025, passed in I.A.No.263 of 2025 in O.S.NO. 744 OF 2012 on the file of the 1ST Addl. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Guntur in the above C.R.P. and pass 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 to stay all further proceedings in O.S.NO. 744 OF 2012 on the file of 1ST Addl. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Guntur pending disposal of the present revision petition and pass CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1929/2025 Between: 1. RAYAPATI SRINIVASA RAO (DIED), (DIED) 2. RAYAPATI SUJANI,, W/O. RAYAPATI SRINIVASA RAO AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 4-4-63 1ST LANE, CHANDRAMOULI NAGAR, GUNTUR. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. GULLAPALLI VEEREN CHAKRAVARTHY, S/O. SUBBA RAO AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O. CHANDRAMOULI NAGAR GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. GULLAPALLI RAJYA LAKSHMI, W/O. SUBBA RAO AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 3-30-11/4, 5TH LANE BRUNDAVAN GARDENS, GUNTUR. 3. GULLAPALLI SUBBA RAO, S/O. LATE BASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O. CHANDRAMOULI NAGAR GUNTUR. 4. MYNENI COTTONS, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MYNENI RAM PRASAD 5. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP. BY ITS DISTRICT COLLECTOR GUNTUR 5. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS DISTRICT COLLECTOR GUNTUR ...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 to may be pleased to set aside the order dated 06-05-2025 passed in St I.A.No.262 of 2025 in O.S.NO. 744 OF 2012 on the file of 1 Addl. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Guntur, and pass such 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 may be pleased to dispense with the Certified Copy of the order dated 06-05- 2025, passed in I.A.No.262 of 2025 in O.S.NO. 744 OF 2012, on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Guntur in the above C.R.P. and pass such 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 may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.NO. 744 OF 2012 on the file of 1 St Addl. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Guntur pending disposal1 of the present revision petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M L NEELIMA The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER:- The Civil Revision Petitions have been filed aggrieved by the order, dated 06.05.2025 passed in I.A.Nos.262 & 263 of 2025 in O.S.No.744 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur (“Trial Court” for short). 2. Both the Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the orders, dated 06.05.2025, passed in I.A.Nos.262 and 263 of 2025 in O.S.No.744 of 2012 by the trial Court, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents 1 to 5 are the defendants in the suit. 4. It is expedient to refer the parties as they are originally arrayed in the suit so as to avoid any confusion and for better understanding of the matter. 5. The suit in O.S.No.744 of 2012, on the file trial Court has been filed by the plaintiff to institute the suit as an indecent person and for declaration that the plaintiff is rightful owner of the plaint schedule property by virtue of the Will, dated 12.10.2001 executed by late Rayapati Veeraiah in favour of Rayapati Srinivasa Rao and also for mense profits and for a direction to the 4th defendant to deposit the rent into Court pending disposal of the suit. Pending the suit, the defendant filed I.A.Nos.262 and 263 of 2025 seeking to reopen the case for recalling the evidence of P.W.1 for further cross examination. 6. Heard M/s. Pillix Law Firm, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. M.L. Neelima, learned counsel for the respondents. 7. The learned counsel for the defendants would submit that the defendants very recently came to know that the 2nd plaintiff obtained pattadar passbook and title deed book in her favour regarding Ac.10-69 cents situated in Unguturu Village, Amaravathi Mandal, Palnadu District and got her name mutated in revenue records with Khata Nos.2072 and 2073 and they have obtained copies under Right to Information Act on15.03.2025. On perusal of the same, defendants came to know that the 2nd plaintiff obtained the pattadar passbook and title deed book in her favour on the basis of a registered Will, dated 05.03.1999. The Will, dated 05.03.1999 is the sheet anchor of the case of the defendants as it is falsely contending contra to the suit by the 2nd plaintiff. The said events have direct bearing on the adjudication of the suit in a just manner, the same cuts the very root of the case of the 2nd plaintiff and further fortifies the case of the defendants. As the defendants have got case to succeed, they sought further cross examination of the 2nd plaintiff on that aspect and as such P.W.1 has to be recalled after reopening the matter for the purpose of further cross examination. The learned counsel would submit that it will help the Court to come to a right conclusion in the suit. He further contends that they could not file in the said petition earlier as they came to know about the same recently. 8. In view of the above, it appears that 2nd plaintiff alone has to explain why she referred to or enclosed Will, dated 05.03.1999 in her application for seeking pattadar passbook and title deed book while enclosing the Will, dated 05.03.1999 to the Tahsildar. In fact, the entire issue involved in the main suit is revolving around Will, dated 05.03.1999 and Will dated 12.10.2001. In view of the same, the learned trial Judge is opined that recalling of P.W.1 for further cross examination regarding the application submitted by the 2nd plaintiff to the Tahsildar by enclosing the Will, dated 05.03.1999 and relevant documents is very essential for just decision in the present case. The reasons stated by the defendants for not filing this application at an earlier point of time is they obtained the information under Right to Information Act recently on 15.03.2025, which cannot be brushed aside. Further by recalling P.W.1 for further cross examination by reopening her evidence would not cause any prejudice to the plaintiffs. In my considered view, the 2nd plaintiff has to explain why she enclosed the Will, dated 05.03.1999 seeking pattadar passbook and title deed book from the Tahsildar and for that purpose further cross examination of 2nd plaintiff is very much required for proper adjudication of the case. 9. In view of the above, in my considered view, interference of the reasoned order passed by the trial Court is unwarranted as there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the trial court. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Date: 19.09.2025 PGR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND C.R.P.Nos.1928 & 1929 of 2025 Date:19.09.2025 PGR