APHC010004412026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [0] FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 216/2026 Between: 1. PULLAGANTI REDDEPPA, S/O GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O THUMMACHETLAPALLE, ANGALLU POST, KURABALAKOTA MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT- 517325. 2. PULLAGANTI SREENIVASULU,, S/O GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O THUMMACHETLAPALLE, ANGALLU POST, KURABALAKOTA MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT- 517325. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. UPPITHI SREENIVASULU, S/o Yellappa, Aged about 58 years. Permanent resident of Thummachetlapalle, Angallu Post, Kurabalakota Mandal, Annamayya District- 517325. ...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 dated 22-12-2025 passed in I.A.No.357/2025 in I.A.No.01/2024 in O.S.No.948/2023 on the file of Hon’ble Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madanapalle and allow the same. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 216 of 2026 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 22.12.2025 in I.A.No.357 of 2025 in I.A.No.01 of 2024 in O.S.No.948 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madanapalle. 2. The revision petitioners/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.357 of 2025 under Order XVI Rule 1(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to summon Rishi Valley Education Centre, represented by its Executive Committee or the Principal to produce the registered documents, if any, standing in the name of the said education centre in respect of the plaint schedule property and to give evidence on behalf of the petitioners/plaintiffs. 3. The respondent/defendant resisting the said application by filing a detailed counter. The learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madanapalle, after considering the matter, dismissed the said Interlocutory application. 4. Sri M. Chiranjeevi Babu, learned counsel representing Sri A. Syam Sundar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, made submissions to impress the Court that the order under challenge is not sustainable. He 3 submits that the learned trial Court, without considering the matter in the proper perspective, dismissed the application. It is his contention that, in order to substantiate the claim of the petitioners/plaintiffs that they purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed and to disprove the stand taken by the respondent/defendant, summoning of the documents of the said education institution and recording the evidence of the concerned Principal is essential, therefore, the application in question was filed. He further submits that no prejudice will be caused to the respondent/defendant, if the application is allowed, as an opportunity to examine the witnesses and contradict the documents would be available to the respondent/defendant. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the order under challenge. 5. This Court has considered the submissions and upon perusal of the material on record, the only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be interfered, in the facts and circumstances of the case? 6. At the outset, it would be appropriate to note that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the above-mentioned suit against the respondent/defendant seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment in the plaint schedule property. An application 4 under Order XXXIX of CPC is pending adjudication. At that stage, the present interlocutory application in question came to be filed. 7. As seen from the affidavit filed in support of the application in question, the petitioners seek to summon documents pertaining to a third party to the suit for the purpose of establishing their possession over the suit schedule property, that too, in view of the stand taken by the respondent/defendant that the suit schedule property. If the petitioners are intending to substantiate their claim that they are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, they have to adduce cogent evidence to that effect, but not by summoning records or documents of some third parties. The learned trial Judge, taking the said aspect into consideration, was not inclined to allow the application in question. This Court finds no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned trial Court. 8. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J 30.01.2026 ARB 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 216/2026 Date:30.01.2026 ARB