APHC010490772026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] WEDNESDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2637/2026 Between: 1. TAMBALLAPALLE NALLAPAREDDI PRABHAVATHAMMA, W/O. NALLAPAREDDI RAMACHANDRA REDDY,AGED 60 YEARS, OCC,HOUSE WIFE,R/O. D.NO. 10/82, RAVINDRA NAGAR,YUGUVA KURAVA VANKA, MADANAPALLI VILLAGE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT NOW ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT - 517 325 2. VANGIMALLA RAMALINGA REDDY, S/O. RAMI REDDY, AGED 70 YEARS, OCC, BUSINESS,R/O. D.NO.39/106-32, SREERAM NAGAR,KOTHAPETA, RAYACHOTY VILLAGE MANDALKADAPA DISTRICT NOW ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT - 516269 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. RAMANA GOVINDU REDDY, S/O. GANGI REDDY,AGED 54 YEARS, OCC. DTDC COURIER CENTER,PROPRIETOR,R/O.D.NO.50/39-1, TEACHER CHALAPATHI STREET,KOTHAPETA, RAYACHOTY VILLAGE MANDALKADAPA DISTRICT NOW ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT - 516269 2. MADIREDDY RAMANATHA REDDY, S/O.KRISHNA REDDY, AGED 71 YEARS, HINDU,R/O. REDDIVARIPALLI H/O. THIMMASAMUDRAM,TSUNDUPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT 516130 ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 aggrieved by the Docket orders dated. 24-08-2026 passed in I.A.NO. 504 of 2026 in O.S. No.02 of 2019, on the file of V Additional District Judge at Rayachoty the Revision Petitioner is obliged to prefer the present REVISION IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 stay all further proceedings in O.S.NO. 02 of 2019 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2676/2026 Between: 1. TAMBALLAPALLE NALLAPAREDDI PRABHAVATHAMMA, W/O. NALLAPAREDDI RAMACHANDRA REDDY,AGED 60 YEARS, OCC,HOUSE WIFE,R/O. D.NO. 10/82, RAVINDRA NAGAR,YUGUVA KURAVA VANKA, MADANAPALLI VILLAGE MANDAL,CHITTOOR DISTRICT NOW ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT - 517 325 2. VANGIMALLA RAMALINGA REDDY, S/O. RAMI REDDY,AGED 70 YEARS, OCC, BUSINESS,R/O. D.NO.39/106-32, SREERAM NAGAR,KOTHAPETA, RAYACHOTY VILLAGE MANDALKADAPA DISTRICT NOW ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT - 516269 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. RAMANA GOVINDU REDDY, S/O. GANGI REDDY, AGED 54 YEARS, OCC. DTDC COURIER CENTER,PROPRIETOR, R/O.D.NO.50/39-1, TEACHER CHALAPATHI STREET,KOTHAPETA, RAYACHOTY VILLAGE MANDALKADAPA DISTRICT NOW ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT - 516269 2. MADIREDDY RAMANATHA REDDY, S/O.KRISHNA REDDY, AGED 71 YEARS, HINDU,R/O. REDDIVARIPALLI H/O. THIMMASAMUDRAM, TSUNDUPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT 516130 3 ...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 toAggrieved by the orders dated. 24-08-2026 passed in I.A.NO. 503 of 2026 in O.S. No.02 of 2019, on the file of V Additional District Judge at Rayachoty the Revision Petitioner is obliged to prefer the present REVISION IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 Stay all further proceedings in O.S.NO. 02 of 2019 on the V Additional District Judge,Rayachoty pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2621/2026 Between: 1. TAMBALLAPALLE NALLAPAREDDI PRABHAVATHAMMA, W/O. NALLAPAREDDI RAMACHANDRA REDDY, AGED 60 YEARS, OCC,HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D.NO. 10/82, RAVINDRA NAGAR, YUGUVA KURAYA VANKA, MADANAPALLI VILLAGE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT NOW ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT - 517 325 2. VANGIMALLA RAMALINGA REDDY, S/O. RAMI REDDY, AGED 70 YEARS, OCC, BUSINESS, R/O, D.NO.39/106-32, SREERAM NAGAR, KOTHAPETA, RAYACHOTY VILLAGE MANDAL KADAPA DISTRICT NOW ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT - 516269 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. RAMANA GOVINDU REDDY, S/O. GANGI REDDY, AGED 54 YEARS, OCC. DTDC COURIER CENTER,PROPRIETOR R/O.D.NO.50/39-1, TEACHER CHALAPATHI STREET, KOTHAPETA, RAYACHOTY VILLAGE MANDAL KADAPA DISTRICT NOW ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT - 516269 2. MADIREDDY RAMANATHA REDDY, S/O.KRISHNA REDDY AGED 71 YEARS, HINDU,R/O. REDDIVARIPALLI H/O. THIMMASAMUDRAM, TSUNDUPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT 516130 4 ...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 toAggrieved by the Docket orders dated. 24-08-2026 passed in I.A.NO. 505 of 2026 in O.S. No.02 of 2019, on the file of V Additional District Judge at Rayachoty the Revision Petitioner is obliged to prefer the present REVISION IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 stay all further proceedings in O.S.NO. 02 of 2019 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty the Civil Revision Petition, Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. D SESHASAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY The Court made the following: 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2637, 2676 and 2621 OF 2026 COMMON ORDER: Since the parties and issues involved in all these petitions are interlinked and intertwined, hence, these three Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of by way of this common order. 2. The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs, filed O.S.No.02 of 2019 on the file of learned V Additional District Judge, Kadapa camp, at Rayachoty, seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 20.12.2018. When the suit was posted for arguments, at that juncture, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.503 of 2026 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to reopen the suit on the plaintiffs’ side for the purpose of recalling P.W.1 to mark the certified copy of order dated 29.08.2012 in W.P.No.5186 of 2009. 3. I.A.No.504 of 2026 is filed seeking to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of marking the said certified copy of order dated 29.08.2012 in W.P.No.5186 of 2009. 4. I.A.No.505 of 2026 is filed seeking to receive the said document and mark the same as exhibit on behalf of plaintiffs through P.W.1. 5. The learned trial Court, vide orders dated 24.08.2026, dismissed the said Interlocutory Applications, inter alia, observing that no tenable grounds to 6 allow these applications, disbelieving the contentions of the petitioners mainly on the ground that these applications were filed subsequent to closure of the evidence, when the suit is posted for arguments. 6. Assailing the orders dated 24.08.2026, these Civil Revision Petitions have been filed contending, inter alia, that document sought to be marked is relevant and necessary for a proper and effective adjudication of the suit, the trial Court ought to have been allowed rather than rejecting the applications merely on the ground of delay. It is further contended that survey number mentioned in W.P.No.5186 of 2009 and survey number mentioned in the suit are one and the same. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 8. The petitioners filed suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale deed dated 20.12.2018. The respondents/defendants filed their written statement in the suit and it is asserted that as per the agreement of sale, there is no obligation on the part of defendants to separate the suit schedule property out of total extent of suit survey number. It is further asserted that the 1st defendant sold his one acre of land out of joint Ac.3.00 cents. The remaining extent of Ac.2.00 cents belongs to the plaintiffs in such an event there is no necessity to separate the suit schedule property Ac.1.00 cents out of Ac.3.00 cents. The plaintiffs themselves clearly noted in the plaint schedule the clear boundaries to the extent of Ac.3.00 cents, that is Ac.1.00 cents of the 7 1st defendant land and remaining extent of Ac.2.00 cents belongs to plaintiffs themselves. In such circumstances, there is no necessity to separate Ac.1.00 cents out of Ac.3.00 cents, as the remaining extent of Ac.2.00 cents belongs to plaintiffs themselves. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants would submit that petitioners/plaintiffs can seek for passing of judgement on admissions of the defendants in the written statement, without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties having regard to such admissions made in the written statement and referred rule 6 of Order XXII CPC which reads as under:- "Rule 6. Judgment on admissions- (1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions. (2) Whenever a judgement is pronounced under sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced". 10. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioners/plaintiff have to pay the balance sale consideration. In order to delay the sale consideration, the petitioners/plaintiffs have come with this application and these respondents are not disputing the claim of the petitioners/plaintiffs. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the revision petitions. 8 11. Though the learned trial Court dismissed the Interlocutory Applications on the ground of delay, this Court is of the view that the document i.e., order in W.P.No.5186 of 2009 dated 29.08.2012 sought to be received and marked are not necessary for the purpose of disposal of the suit, particularly when the respondents are not disputing the execution of agreement of sale. 12. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in these Civil Revision Petitions. Hence, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 23.09.2026 KBN 9 86 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2637, 2676 and 2621 of 2026 Date: 23.09.2026 KBN