APHC010069702026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 538/2026 Between: 1. AKA DANDAIAH PANTULU CHARITIES,, GUNTUR, REP., BY ITS WORKING TRUSTEE, KONDURI NANDA KISHORE, S/O. KRISHNA RAO. AGED 43 YEARS, HINDU, ADVOCATE AND WORKING TRUSTEE OF PLAINTIFF TRUST, DR.5-48-13/2, 4/13 BRODIEPET, GUNTUR -522002, R/O.9TH LANE, A.T.AGRAHARAM, GUNTUR.( PLAINTIFF) ...PETITIONER AND 1. AKA SUBRAHMANAYAM, S/O. RAMA RAO, AGED 56 YEARS, HINDU, PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. SF-3, SATYA SAI HOMES, 6/15 BRODIPET, GUNTUR. (1ST DEFENDANT) 2. VUDRAGIRI KRISHNA MURTHY, S/O. KUPPUSWAMY NAIDU, AGED 40 YEARS, HINDU, PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. DR.NO.1-3-41, BHAVA NAGAR COLONY, PONNUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT (2ND DEFENDANT) 3. GURRAPUSALA RAMU, S/O. BAPAIAH, AGED 50 YEARS, HINDU PRIVATE EMPLOYEE R/O. DR.NO.1-3-41/2, BHAVA NAGAR COLONY,PONNUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. (3RD DEFENDANT) 4. GOPISETTY BHASKARA RAO, S/O. VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED 68 YEARS, HINDU, PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. DR.NO.1-3-17, BHAVA NAGAR COLONY, PONNUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. (4TH DEFENDANT) 2 RRR,J C.R.P.No.538 of 2026 5. SMT SHAIK APRAVUN, W/O. ABDUL SALAM, AGED 63 YEARS, MUSLIM, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. DR.NO.1-2-13/1, BHAVA NAGAR COLONY, PONNUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. (5THDEFENDANT) . ...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 tomay be pleased to a) set aside the impugned decree and Order dt.16.12.2025 in I.A.526/2025 in O.S.195/2018 on the file of the Civil Judge(Senior Division), Bapatla b) allow the Revision, thereby dismiss the Petition in LA.526/2025 in O.S.195/2018 on the file of the Civil Judge(Senior Division), Bapatla c) grant costs throughout and d) pass such 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 may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in O.S.195/2018 on the file of the Civil Judge(Senior Division), Bapatla, pending disposal of main revision petition; and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K H V SIVA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. B V ANJANEYULU 3 RRR,J C.R.P.No.538 of 2026 The Court made the following Order: The petitioner had filed O.S.No.195 of 2018, before the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bapatla, seeking a declaration that, he is the owner of the property described in the schedule to the plaint, and for a consequential injunction, restraining the respondents herein from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the said property. 2. During the course of the suit, the respondents herein had moved I.A.No.526 of 2025, for summoning the minutes book of the petitioner – Trust from its inception, the audit reports of the petitioner-trust as well as the original copy of the will, relied upon by the petitioner to claim ownership over the property. This application was resisted by the petitioner on various grounds, including the contention that, the application is beyond the scope of the plaint and such documents are not necessary in view of the earlier findings, in O.S.No.469 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. The Trial Judge, after hearing both sides, allowed the application, by an order, dated 16.12.2025. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order, dated 16.12.2025, has approached this Court, by way of the present Civil Revision Petition. 4. Heard Sri P. Raj Sekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri K. H. V. Siva Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. V. Anjaneyulu, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 4 RRR,J C.R.P.No.538 of 2026 5. Sri P. Raj Sekhar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, raised various issues, including the ground that, no cogent reasons had been given in the impugned order and that, the objections raised by the petitioner, have not been answered by the Trial Court. 6. Sri B. V. Anjaneyulu, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, contends that, the issues raised by the 1st respondent in the suit, require these documents in as much as there is a dispute as to the existence of the Trust and whether the will, relied upon by the petitioner – trust, confers rights or title on the said property in favour of the trust. 7. A perusal of the order of the Trial Court would show that, these issues were not adverted or answered by the Trial Court and as such, the Order of the Trial Court, passed in I.A.No.526 of 2025, in O.S.No.195 of 2018, dated 16.12.2025, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court for proper appreciation and decision. 8. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Date:27.02.2026 KPV 5 RRR,J C.R.P.No.538 of 2026 241 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:538 of 2026 27.02.2026 KPV