IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 604 AND 606 OF 2023 CRP NO. 604 OF 2023 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 allow this Civil Rivision Petition by setting aside the Common Order dated 03-01-2023 in I.A. 2114 of 2022 in OS NO. 3 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge,(Junior Division),Narasaraopet . Between: Allatipalli Nageswara Reddy, son of Ramircddy, Hindu, 39 Cultivation, resident of Vipparla Reddpalem, Rompicharla Mandalam, Palnadu district years ...PETITIONER/DEFENDANT AND Duddukunta Venkata Reddy, son of Bali reddy, Hindu aged,76 years Cultivation, Vipparla reddypalem, Rompicharla Mandalam, Palnadu District. ...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIF Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SATYANARAYANA NIMMALA Counsel for the Respondent : M/S T V SRI DEVI A CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 606 AND 604 OF 2023 CRP NO, 606 OF 203 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 allow this Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the Common Order dated 03-01-2023 in I.A. 2106 of 2022 in O.S No. 3 OF. 2020 on the file of the Principal Junior civil Judge,( Junior Division) at Narasaraopet. Between: Allatipalli Nageswara Reddy, son of Ramireddy, Hindu, 39 years. Cultivation, resident of Vipparla Reddpalem, Rompicharla Mandalam, Palnadu district ...PETITIONERDEFENDANT AND Duddukunta Venkata Reddy, son of Bali reddy, Hindu aged,76 years. Cultivation, Vipparla reddypalem, Rompicharla Mandalam, Palnadu District. ...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF Counsel for the Petitioner ; SRI SATYANARAYANA NIMMALA Counsel for the Respondent : M/S T V SRI DEVI The Court made the following COMMON ORDER : ¥ - 1 APHC010081692023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS: 604 AND 606 OF 2023 Between; ...PETITIONER Allatipalli Nageswara Reddy AND ...RESPONDENT Duddukunta Venkata Reddy Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.SATYANARAYANA NIMMALA Counsel for the Respondent; 1.TVSRI DEVI The Court made the following; 2 40 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.604 & 606 OF 2022 COMMON ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition No.604 of 2022 is filed questioning the order, 1. dated 03.01.2023, passed in I.A.No.2114 of 2022 in O.S.No.3 of 2020, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Narasaraopet. 2. The Civil Revision Petition No.606 of 2022 is filed questioning the order, dated 03.01.2023, passed in I.A.No.2106 of 2022 in O.S.No.3 of 2020, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Narasaraopet. 3. The petitioner is the defendant. The suit was filed for recovery of money on the basis of promissory note, which is said to have been executed by the petitioner on 04.04.2017. After conclusion of the evidence and while the suit was posted for arguments, the petitioner filed the above mentioned applications to reopen the suit and to summon the Civil Surgeon, P.H.C. Durgi Village and to produce attendance register pertaining to the month of April, 2017, to disprove the evidence of PW2, who had given evidence on 06.01.2022. The trial court on contest, dismissed the said applications by way of a common order. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. 5. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that the petitionerfiled attendance register of PW2 through the Right to Information Act on 18.11.2022 to disprove the evidence of PW2, who is the attester of the suit. However, as the suit is at the stage of arguments, this Court is of the opinion 3 that it would be sufficient, if the information received through the Right to evidence and there is no requirement for Information Act is marked in summoning Civil Surgeon for the reason that they did not have any personal information, apart from the information that was already furnished through the Right to Information Act. Therefore, the order of the trial court is hereby set-aside and the Civil partly allowed, directing the trial court to re-open the 6. Revision Petitions are suit only for the purpose of marking the documents filed by the petitioner 18.11.2022, enclosing the attendance through Right to Information Act on register of PW2. 7. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are partly allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- M.PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Civil Judge,(Junior Division),Narasaraopet, Guntur District. 2. One CC to SRI. SATYANARAYANA NIMMALA Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to M\S. T.V.SRI DEVI Advocate [OPUC] 4. THREE CD COPIES SD TAC HIGH COURT DATED:03/01/2025 COMMON ORDER CRP.No.604 AND 606 of 2023 * 11 MAR 20» Current «>ecuon 4£ffSPATCV^ PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRPS WITHOUT COSTS