APHC010624892025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] TUESDAY, THE 8th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 3276 OF 2025 & 3277 OF 2025 CRP No.3276 of 2025: Between: 1. KUNA SANJEEVA RAO, (DIED) 2. KUNA SATYAVATHI, W/O LATE SANJEEVA RAO, AGED 74 YEARS. HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, R/O MAINSTREET, KRISHNAPURAM, AMADALAVALASA MUNICIPALITY, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. KUNA KARTHIKA RAJU, S/O SANJEEVA RAO AGED 41 YEARS. CULTIVATION, REST DO- 4. CHINTADA SIRISHA, S/O SAI BHARADWAJ, AGED 35 YEARS HOUSEHOLD DUTIES. REST DO- ...PETITIONER(S) A N D 1. YENNI KALAYATHI, W/o Appalaswamy, aged 56 years. Household duties, R/o D.No. 6-1-89, I.J. Naidu Colony, Amadalavalasa Municipality, Srikakulam District. ...RESPONDENT 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 set aside the Order, Dt. 23.10.2025 passed in I.A. No.619 of 2025 in O.S.No.70 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amadalavalasa, 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No.70 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Civil SRK, J CRP Nos.3276 & 3277 of 2025 2 Judge (Junior Division), Amadalavalasa, pending disposal of the main CRP and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SRINIVAS AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI CRP No.3277 of 2025: Between: 1. KUNA SANJEEVA RAO, (DIED) 2. KUNA SATYAVATHI, W/O LATE SANJEEVA RAO, AGED 74 YEARS. HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, R/O MAINSTREET, KRISHNAPURAM, AMADALAVALASA MUNICIPALITY, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. KUNA KARTHIKA RAJU, S/O SANJEEVA RAO, AGED 41 YEARS. CULTIVATION, REST DO- 4. CHINTADA SIRISHA,, S/O SAI BHARADWAJ, AGED 35 YEARS. HOUSEHOLD DUTIES. REST DO- ...PETITIONER(S) A N D 1. YENNI KALAYATHI, W/o Appalaswamy, aged 56 years. Household duties, R/o D.No. 6-1-89, I.J. Naidu Colony, Amadalavalasa Municipality, Srikakulam District. ...RESPONDENT 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 set aside the Order, Dt. 23.10.2025 passed in I.A. No.620 of 2025 in O.S. No.70 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amadalavalasa, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SRINIVAS AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI The Court made the following: SRK, J CRP Nos.3276 & 3277 of 2025 3 C O M M O N O R D E R: Since the parties, contentions and rival contentions are one and the same, and further, the point involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions is also one and the same, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of, by this Common Order. 2. Civil Revision Petition Nos.3276 of 2025 and 3277 of 2025 came to be filed challenging the Orders, dated 23.10.2025 passed in I.A.No.619 of 2025 and I.A.No.620 of 2025 in O.S.No.70 of 2017, respectively, whereby and whereunder, the aforesaid applications filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs seeking to reopen the suit in O.S.No.70 of 2017, and to receive the documents by condoning the delay, are dismissed. 3. Petitioners herein are the plaintiffs, and respondent herein is the defendant, in O.S.No.70 of 2017 on the file of the trial Court. The parties herein are referred to, as they were arrayed in the suit proceedings pending before the trial Court. 4. Plaintiffs filed O.S.No.70 of 2017 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amadalavalasa, against the defendant, for the relief of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant, her men, agents and servants from entering into or in any SRK, J CRP Nos.3276 & 3277 of 2025 4 way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property situated in Survey No.32/6 towards North end shown as ACD in the rough plan. 5. It is the case of plaintiffs that the schedule property is situated in Survey No.32/6 of Krishnapuram Revenue Village, and the total extent is Ac.0.12 cents, out of which, his ancestors kept the vacant site towards rahadari (passage) on the Northern side, and sold away the remaining portion on the Southern side of rahadari (passage) to various persons; that similarly, one Kuna Suramnaidu, who is elder brother of 3rd plaintiff’s grandfather viz. Chandrunaidu, sold away an extent of 12 feet from North to South and 70 feet from East to West, which is on the Southern side of rahadari (passage) to one Pattem Santharatnam, W/o.Neelakantam of Jayapuram under the Registered Sale Deed, dated 11.09.1963, and by that time, the survey proceedings were not done, as such, no survey numbers were allotted; that in the Registered Sale Deed, dated 11.09.1963, the Northern boundary was clearly mentioned as rahadari (passage). 6. It is the contention of plaintiffs that they obtained EC for the Registered Sale Deeds, dated 29.06.2000 and 24.05.2000, and in the Sale Deed dated 29.06.2000, the Southern boundary was shown as road, in which case, the defendant property is situated on the SRK, J CRP Nos.3276 & 3277 of 2025 5 Northern side of rahadari (passage) road belongs to the plaintiffs’ family. The defendant, in her Registered Sale Deed belonged to one Malla Suryanarayana, wrongly shown as Southern boundary, ignoring the rahadari (passage), which is the suit schedule property. The plaintiff No.3 obtained Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 11.09.1963, and Encumbrance Certificate dated 11.09.2025 obtained from the Sub-Registrar, Amadalavalasa. It is further contended that the above said documents are very much essential to prove their case. Hence, they filed I.A.Nos.619 of 2025 and 620 of 2025, seeking to reopen the suit proceedings, and to receive the aforesaid documents by condoning the delay. 7. The defendant filed counter, denying the contents of the petition, contending inter alia that the defendant purchased the properties situated in Survey No.32/5 of Krishnapuram Revenue Village from her vendors viz. Korada Venkata Rao and others under Registered Sale Deed dated 20.05.2000, and also from one Tammana Trinadha Rao and others under Registered Sale Deed, dated 28.06.2000; that the properties covered under the aforesaid sale deeds physically situate side by side, and towards Southern side, property of one Malla Suryanarayana, purchased by him under Registered Sale Deed dated 09.02.2015 from his vendor viz. SRK, J CRP Nos.3276 & 3277 of 2025 6 Arasankula Lalitha Kumari, is situated. She further contends that in Ex.B3, the Northern boundary was shown as Vamsadara Colony Road and Southern side boundary is shown as Ex.B1 property belongs to the defendant, and towards Southern side of Ex.B1, there is Ex.B5 property belongs to Malla Suryanarayana. She further contends that Exs.B1 and B3 properties are situated in Survey No.32/5, and Ex.B5 property is situated in Survey No.32/6 and between Exs.B1, B3 and B5, there is no other person’s property; that the proposed documents of the plaintiffs are not relating to the suit proceedings, and no way concerned with the subject matter of the suit proceedings; that the plaintiffs, after eight years of filing of the suit, filed the applications at the stage of reply arguments only in order to dragon the proceedings. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the applications. 8. The trial Court vide Order dated 23.10.2025 dismissed the I.A.No.619 of 2025 holding as under: “Perused the petition and the counter filed by the above respondent. As could be seen from the averments of the petition, there is no single whisper as regards to the aspects, which came into light subsequent to the closure of the evidence of the plaintiff and the matter was posted for further arguments of the plaintiff, since the petition does not disclose the material particulars in respect of which the petitioner intends to reopen the evidence of plaintiff, on that the petitioner has to file the SRK, J CRP Nos.3276 & 3277 of 2025 7 petitions for reopen and recalling, but not reopen only and in the considered view of this Court, it is not just and proper to accept the request of the petitioner.” Consequent to dismissal of I.A.No.619 of 2025, I.A.No.620 of 2025 which was filed to receive the documents by condoning the delay, was also dismissed. Aggrieved of the same, the present Revision Petitions came to be filed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs would contend that the trial Court failed to appreciate the nature and relevance of the documents sought to be brought on record. It is contended that the Certified Copy of the Registered Sale Deed dated 11.09.1963 and the Encumbrance Certificate dated 11.09.2025 are directly connected with the description and identity of the property and the existence of the rahadari (passage), which is the main dispute between the parties. It is further contended that the proposed documents are registered documents, and in case of exhibiting those documents, it would assist the Court for effective adjudication of the case, and it would not cause any prejudice to the respondent/plaintiff, as she would get an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiffs. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would contend that the impugned orders of the trial Court do not require any SRK, J CRP Nos.3276 & 3277 of 2025 8 interference of this Court, and he reiterates that the petitioners/ plaintiffs preferred the aforesaid applications at a belated stage, i.e. at the stage of reply arguments only to dragon the proceedings. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Revision Petitions. 11. Heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the material available on record. 12. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the Orders dated 23.10.2025 passed in I.A.Nos.619 of 2025 and 620 of 2025 both in O.S.No.70 of 2017 by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amadalavalasa, warrant any interference of this Court? 13. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that indisputably, the plaintiffs filed the suit for Permanent Injunction. A perusal of contentions and rival contentions of both parties goes to show that the entire dispute turns around the identity, location and boundaries of the respective properties, more particularly, the alleged existence of a rahadari (passage) between the properties. In a suit of this nature, documentary evidence, pertaining to boundaries and prior sale transactions in respect of the property assumes significance. 14. A perusal of the contentions of the petitioners/plaintiffs goes to show that they specifically relied upon the existence of rahadari (passage) on the Northern side and contended that the SRK, J CRP Nos.3276 & 3277 of 2025 9 defendant, while describing the boundaries of her property, ignored the said passage. The respondent/defendant, on the other hand, disputes the existence of any intervening property or passage and relies upon the boundaries mentioned in her title deeds and other documents. Therefore, the question as to whether the position of the properties and their boundaries in the earlier sale transactions, is a matter having a bearing upon the adjudication of the pending suit. 15. In that context, the Registered Sale Deed dated 11.09.1963, in which the Northern boundary is stated to be the rahadari (passage), cannot be said, at this stage, to be wholly irrelevant or unconnected with the subject matter of the suit. Similarly, the Encumbrance Certificate obtained from the Sub-Registrar is a document which may assist the Court in appreciating the chain of sale transactions and description of the properties. 16. The trial Court primarily rejected I.A.No.619 of 2025 on the ground that the petitioners had not stated any circumstance that came to light subsequent to the closure of their evidence, and that they ought to have filed a petition for reopen and recall, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the said approach appears to be improper. Indisputably, the ultimate cause of proper adjudication of the case is to render justice, and to enable the Court to arrive at an SRK, J CRP Nos.3276 & 3277 of 2025 10 effective and just conclusion of the dispute. Mere fact that an application is filed at a belated stage cannot, by itself, be a ground for rejection when the documents sought to be brought on record appear to have a bearing on the controversy and when it would enable the Court to effectively determine the dispute between the parties. In the present case, the documents sought to be received relate to the description and boundaries of the properties, which constitute an important aspect of the dispute on hand. Therefore, the same cannot be rejected merely on the ground of delay. 17. Admittedly, the suit is of the year 2017 and the impugned applications filed in the year 2025, therefore, the delay cannot be brushed aside. At the same time, the paramount consideration is whether the proposed documents are necessary for determining the dispute between the parties. In the present case, the respondent/ defendant has already made her appearance and contested the impugned applications on merits. The documents are stated to be a Certified Copy of a Registered Sale Deed and an Encumbrance Certificate. The evidentiary value, relevancy and effect of the proposed documents are to be decided by the trial Court after affording an opportunity to the respondent/defendant during cross- examination. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that in SRK, J CRP Nos.3276 & 3277 of 2025 11 the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to permit the petitioners/plaintiffs to bring the proposed documents on record, subject to the respondent/defendant being afforded a reasonable opportunity in accordance with law. In view of I.A.No.619 of 2025 deserves to be allowed for reopening the suit proceedings for the limited purpose of receiving them, and the consequential application in I.A.No.620 of 2025 also deserves to be allowed. The question as to whether the documents ultimately deserve to be marked in evidence and the evidentiary weight to be attached to them shall be decided by the trial Court in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to both sides. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the impugned Orders dated 23.10.2025 suffer from an error warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 18. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition Nos.3276 and 3277 of 2025 are allowed. The Orders dated 23.10.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amadalavalasa, in I.A.No.619 of 2025 and I.A.No.620 of 2025 both in O.S.No.70 of 2017 are hereby set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.619 of 2025 is allowed and the suit proceedings are reopened for the purpose of enabling the petitioners/ plaintiffs to place the documents referred to, in the application on SRK, J CRP Nos.3276 & 3277 of 2025 12 record. I.A.No.620 of 2025 is also allowed and the trial Court is directed to receive the documents, subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs of the Revision Petitions. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the Revision Petitions shall stand closed. JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 8th September, 2026. DNB