APHC010091912025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 477/2025 Between: D A V Emmanuel and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Boggarapu Venkata Subba Rao and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. G MANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 478/2025 Between: D A V Emmanuel and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Boggarapu Venkata Subba Rao and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. G MANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2 C.R.P.Nos.477, 478 of 2025 The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.477 of 2025 This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners/plaintiffs aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.2024 dismissing I.A.No.719 of 2024 in O.S.No.342 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kurnool filed under Order XVI rule 14 under section 151 CPC to summon to the following witnesses: 1.The Circle Inspector of Police, II Town P.S Kurnool basing on records pertaining to crime No.23/2013 registered on 26- 01-2013 by the then II Town P.S., Kurnool, to depose as C.W1, by directing him to brought the entire record of Crime No.23/2013. 2.Regional Joint Director of Schedule Education, Kadapa basing on the report submitted by the then RJD in Rc.No.69/MC-2/2005 dated 16-11-2016 to depose as C.W2 by directing him to produce the said report. 3. advocate commissioner who filed his report along with deposition of PW1 in the above suit to depose as C.W3. C.R.P.No.478 of 2025 This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners/plaintiffs aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.2024 dismissing I.A.No.718 of 2024 in O.S.No.342 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kurnool filed under section 151 CPC to re-open the case in the 3 C.R.P.Nos.477, 478 of 2025 event of issuance of summons, if any, to the proposed witnesses in I.A.No.719 of 2024. 2. The suit was filed for permanent injunction. The suit was posted to 12.12.2024 for arguments. The petitioners submitted that while preparing for arguments, they had noticed FIR registered in Cr.No.23 of 2013 of Kurnool II-town PS pertaining to the dispute in the suit and that the criminal case was pending before the Court of Judicial I-Class Magistrate, Kurnool and therefore it is necessary to summon C.I of Police, Kurnool II-town P.S. Further, a Writ Petition No.5877 of 2003 was filed by a Devabhushanam against the respondents herein and in that case, the Regional Joint Director of School Education, Kadapa inspected the properties of the Missionary and submitted a report of enquiry to the government and therefore it is necessary to examine him as witness in relation to the report. The petitioners further sought to summon advocate commissioner who was appointed to record the cross-examination of PW1. 3. The respondent No.1 died. The respondents No.3 to 7 were set exparte. The respondent No.3 did not file counter. The respondent No.2 filed counter opposing the petition stating that the respondents were not aware of the criminal case and that PW1 had not whispered about the enquiry and the report. It was further stated that there was no purpose to summon the commissioner who merely recorded evidence in cross-examination of PW1. 4. After hearing the petitioners and the respondent No.2, the trial Court dismissed the petition observing that there was no purpose to summon C.I of Police since FIR had already been 4 C.R.P.Nos.477, 478 of 2025 marked as Ex.A8 through PW1 and lengthy cross-examination of PW1 had been conducted; that a certified copy of the order in W.P.5877 of 2003 had been marked as Ex.A13 through PW1 and a lengthy cross-examination had been conducted and therefore there was no need to summon the Regional Joint Director of School Education, Kadapa and that there was no need to summon the commissioner since he had recorded the cross-examination of witness. While dismissing the petition, the trial Court directed the petitioners to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to District Legal Services Authority, Kurnool for abusing process of law by filing vexatious application at the stage of arguments. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterates the reasons stated in the affidavit annexed to the petition filed to summon the witnesses. 6. As the trial Court has not committed any error or mistake of law in dismissing the petition by giving valid reasons, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. However, since the petitioners filed the petition under bonafide belief that atleast the report of the Regional Joint Director would serve the purpose of the petitioners to establish their case, imposition of costs would be prejudicial to them. 7. Accordingly, civil revision petition No.477 of 2025 is partly allowed by setting aside the direction for payment of costs and the rest of the order remains intact. 8. While dismissing I.A.No.719 of 2024, the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.718 of 2024 as a consequential order. As such, no interference is required. Therefore, C.R.P.478 of 2025 is dismissed. 5 C.R.P.Nos.477, 478 of 2025 There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision petition shall stand closed. _____________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J Date: 04.03.2025 GRL 6 C.R.P.Nos.477, 478 of 2025 69 THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI C.R.P.Nos.477 and 478 of 2025 04.03.2025 GRL