1 APHC010473572024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2576/2024 Between: 1. GANJIKUNTA RUKMINAMMA, W/O. LATE SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O.D.NO.4/229, KANAPALLI VILLAGE, KHADARABAD POST, PRODDATURMANDAL, YSR DISTRICT. 2. GOSULA SESHIKALA,, W/O.SURENDRANATH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O.D.NO.1/48, ALLADUPALLE VILLAGE AND POST, CHAPADU MANDAL, YSR DISTRICT. 3. GUMMALA NARAYANA REEDY,, S/O.LATE NAGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.15/465-2-3, BALAJI NAGAR-I, MYDUKUR ROAD, PRODDATUR, YSR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. GANJIKUNTA RAMASUBBA REDDY, S/O. LATE SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.3-39, RTC COLONY, MANDINAGUNDA, HYDERABAD. 2. OBULAM DHANUNJAYA REDDY, S/O.NARAPU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O.KANALA VILLAGE AND POST, NANDYALA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. GANJIKUNTA RAMANA REDDY, S/O.LATE SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC. CONTRACTOR, R/O.D.NO.4/229, KANAPALLI VILLAGE, KHADARABAD POST, PRODDATUR 2 MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. KATTAMRRDI VARALAKSHMI, W/O.MADHU SUDHANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O.D.NO.15/448, BALAJI NAGAR-1, MYDUKURU ROAD, PRODDATUR, YSR DISTRICT. 5. GOGANTI SUNEETHA BUJJI, W/O.SURENDRANATH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER, R/O.METTUPALLI VILLAGE, AVUKU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K DEVANATH 2. SHAIK OMER QAIYUM 3 The Court made the following ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the defendants No.3, 5 and 7, challenging the order dated 30.07.2024 passed in I.A.No.1289 of 2021 in O.S.No.64 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, Y.S.R District, whereby the trial Court allowed the said I.A. filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 151 C.P.C. to reopen the evidence of plaintiff for the purpose of recalling witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3. 2. 2. The respondent No.2/plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.64 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, YSR District against the petitioners herein along with respondents No.1, 3 to 5 seeking a direction to the defendants to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff pertaining to the suit schedule property in consonance of agreement of sale dated 17.01.1996 and to deliver the suit schedule property into possession of the respondent No.2 herein and on their failure, order to deliver the same through the process of the Court after due execution of regular registered sale deed and also for grant of permanent injunction restraining defendants No.1 to 7 and their assignees, agents, successors from in any way alienating the suit schedule property to any others except the plaintiff. 3. The petitioners herein have filed written statement and thereafter, after framing issues, the trial has commenced and after completion of the evidence of the plaintiff and when its coming up for the evidence of defendants, the defendant No.1 filed I.A.No.1289 of 2024 seeking to reopen the evidence of 4 plaintiff/respondent No.1 for the purpose to recalling witnesses of PWs.1 to 3, to enable the petitioners to cross-examine them. The said application was allowed by the Court below by orders dated 30.07.2024 and on payment of costs of Rs.500/- to the petitioners/defendants herein. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 5. The case of the petitioners/defendants No.3, 5 and 7 is that the said I.A. is filed by the respondent No.1 herein duly stating that due to the disputes in his family, he left the family and resided in Hyderabad and in the year 2015, he was attacked with paralysis and thereafter, it was converted as nerve disease and he used to take treatment in various places in and around Hyderabad and as such he was unable to walk properly and could not give instructions to his counsel to proceed with the cross-examination of PWs.1 to 3 and also that he recovered to some extent in the year 2020, but due to Covid-19 pandemic, he could not approach his counsel. However, the said application was not enclosed with any medical evidence to establish the fact that he was attacked with paralysis in the year 2015 and the same was converted to nerve disease and he took treatment in various hospitals in and around Hyderabad. 6. However, the Court below even without assigning any reason on the point of delay, has straight away allowed the application by duly imposing 5 costs of Rs.500/- and also without considering the fact that the respondent No.1 herein has failed to file any medical report to that extent. 7. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, Y.S.R District, on 30.07.2024 in I.A.No.1289 of 2021 in O.S.No.64 of 2012 is liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside order passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, Y.S.R District, on 30.07.2024 in I.A.No.1289 of 2021 in O.S.No.64 of 2012, and the matter remanded to the trial Court for disposal of the said I.A. afresh on filing relevant medical evidence by the respondent No.1 herein in support of his contentions. The said process shall be completed within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA NSM 28.11.2025 6 352 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2756 of 2024 NSM 28.11.2025