1 APHC010591612025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3043 of 2025 Between: 1. Tulabandula Lakshmi Gayathri, W/o Chandra Sekhar, D/o V.V.Radhakrishna Murthy, aged about 45 years, Housewife, residing at D.No.72-5-13/8, Lakshmi Narasimha Home Street, Padamata, Vijayawada. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Vakkalagadda Satyanarayana, S/o late Venkata Radha Krishna Murthy, aged about 60 years, private employee, r/o D.No.5-443, Rebbalavari street, besides P.T.G. Apartments, Stone Housepeta, Nellore District. 2. Vakkalagadda Venkata Radha Krishna Murthy, (DL) (died) 3. Vakkalagadda Venugopal, S/o Venkata Radha Krishna Murthy, aged about 55 years, employee, r/o. D.No.10-17-2, upstairs, Gunturuvari Lane, Brahmanaveedhi, Vijayawada. (D2) 4. Devati Bhaskara Rao, S/o Satyanarayana, aged about 61 years, r/o D.No.17- 3-4, Mannamvari street, Islampeta, Tenali. (D4) 5. Karumuri Lakshmi Kanaka Durga Devi Divya, W/o Siva Kumar, D/o D.Bhaskara Rao, aged about 32 years, Housewife, D.No.17-3-4, Mannamvari street, Islampeta, Tenali. (D5) 6. Yenugukonda Tejaswi, W/o Mahesh Babu, D/o D.Bhaskara Rao, aged about 29 years, r/o D.No.17-3-4, Mannamavari street, Islampeta, Tenali. (D6) ...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 the above named Petitioner begs to present this Memorandum of 2 Civil Revision Petition having been aggrieved by the docket order dated 19.09.2025 passed in O.S.No.115 of 2010, on the file of learned VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.115 of 2010 on the file of the Learned VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, pending disposal of the main revision petition, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KALEEMULLA S Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 The Honourable Sri Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.3043 of 2025 ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the docket order dated 19.09.2025 in O.S.No.115 of 2010 on the file of learned VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. 2. The facts leading to filing of revision petition are as brief stated as follows: The revision petitioner / defendant No.3 in the suit in O.S.No.115 of 2010 filed three revision petitions in C.R.P.Nos.2334, 2335 & 2337 of 2023 against orders dated 28.08.2023 in I.A.Nos.475 of 2022, 563 of 2022 and 562 of 2022 in O.S.No.115 of 2010. 3. I.A.No.475 of 2022 was filed to receive a certified copy of the registered will dated 11.03.2011 by condoning the delay in filing the same. 4. I.A.No.563 of 2022 was filed to permit the petitioner to re-open the suit for advancing further evidence. 5. I.A.No.562 of 2022 was filed to permit the petitioner to file additional written statement in the suit. 6. The revision petitions were allowed on 12.12.2024 by passing an order as follows: “ 12. Therefore, the orders of the trial court dated 28.08.2023 are set aside and the petitioner / defendant No.3 shall pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards costs for the delayed application to the plaintiff within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and file proof of receipt in Court. In the event, plaintiff does not accept the amount, the petitioner shall deposit the said amount into the court. The petitioner/ defendant No.3 shall conclude her evidence within a period of one 4 month thereafter. The trial court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit within a period of one year there from. 13. With the above observations, the impugned orders are set aside and the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. As a sequel pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.” 7. Pursuant the orders, the revision petitioner paid costs of Rs.50,000/-, according to the petitioner, but, the Court recorded as Rs.5,000/-, on 27.01.2025. Payment of costs is not in dispute as can be seen from the subsequent order impugned in the present revision, noted in the later part of this order. The revision petitioner filed an affidavit of D.W.8 who is attesting witness of the will, according to the petitioner, on 28.08.2025. This fact is also not disputed in the impugned order. However, on the objection of learned counsel for the plaintiff, the trial court closed the evidence of the defendant and eschewed the evidence of D.W.8 under the impression that the affidavit of the witness was filed beyond the time stipulated by this court in the order dated 12.12.2024. 8. In the above revision petitions, and passed the impugned order dated 19.09.2025 which reads as follows: “ Memo filed by the plaintiff reported that as per the orders of the Honourable High Court in C.R.P.No.2334, 2335 and 2337 of 2023 dated 12.12.2024 directed that defendant No.3 shall conclude her evidence within a period of one month thereafter. The counsel for D3 reported that the chief examination of D3 as D.W.8 has already filed on 28.02.2025. The counsel for the plaintiff objected that D3 is not complied the orders of the Honourable High Court. The orders of the Honorable High Court received by this Court on 16.01.2025 as such this Court is also is of humble opinion that the orders of the Honourable High Court were not complied by the D3 to adduce evidence within one month. Hence the defendant side evidence is closed. The chief 5 affidavit of D3 as D.W.8 is hereby eschewed. For arguments call on 08.10.2025”. 9. A perusal of the order dated 12.12.2024 in the revisions petitions clearly indicate that the amount of costs shall be paid within the period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of that order and the petitioner / defendant No.3 shall conclude her evidence within the period of one month thereafter. This condition of time has been misunderstood by the trial court. Since docket order dated 27.01.2025 shows the payment of costs, the petitioner is entitled to lead the evidence within one month thereafter. If the affidavit of DW.8 was filed on 28.02.2025, it cannot be treated as non-compliance of the condition of time in the order in the revision petitions, since the first day shall be excluded. If at all there is any objection the same could have been stated at the initial stage. So, that the party could have submitted answer to the objection. Instead of giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner against the objection eschew the evidence under the above circumstances, is apparently incorrect and irregular exercise of the jurisdiction of the trial court. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 10. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the evidence of D.W.8 without any further delay. Both the parties shall assist the court in expeditious disposal of the suit as directed in the order dated 12.12.2024 in the above noted revision petitions. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Revision Petition shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI 28.11.2025 RMR/SSA 6 303 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:3043 OF 2025 Date: 28.11.2025 RMR/SSA