APHC010081832026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the twenty fourth The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: Between: Sane Ramakrishna Reddy Somagattu Gangi Reddy Counsel for the petitioner: T.D.Phani Kumar Counsel for the respondent NIL The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) fourth day of February two thousand and twenty Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 543 and 545 of 2026 Sane Ramakrishna Reddy ...Petitioner and Somagattu Gangi Reddy and others ...Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Counsel for the respondents: The Court made the following: [3311] two thousand and twenty six Petitioner Respondents 2 C.R.P.No.543 & 545 of 2026 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.543 of 2026: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the docket order dated 03.02.2026 dismissing I.A.No.620 of 2025 in O.S.No.133 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kadiri, Ananthapuram District filed under Order XVIII, Rule 17 C.P.C. to recall P.W.1 / plaintiff for adducing further evidence by marking photographs and C.D. already filed. C.R.P.No.545 of 2026: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 03.02.2026 dismissing I.A.No.618 of 2025 in O.S.No.133 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kadiri, Ananthapuram District filed under Section 151 C.P.C. to reopen the evidence of the plaintiff for adducing further evidence of marking of photographs and C.D. 2 The petitioner / plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and delivery of possession. The petitioner contended that pending the suit, during corona pandemic period, the defendants Nos.3, 4, 6 and 13 started making constructions in the suit schedule property and that the petitioner had taken photographs of the same and filed the developed photographs along with the C.D. before the Court and also the respondents filed I.A.No.190 of 2021 under Order XXVI, Rule 9 C.P.C. for appointment of a commissioner to note down physical features, however, the petition was dismissed on 04.07.2022 due to which C.R.P.No.1670 of 2022 was filed before this High Court and the same also was dismissed on 02.01.2023. The petitioner further contended that the photographs and C.D. are very material to file them in evidence on his side. Since he 3 C.R.P.No.543 & 545 of 2026 had already been examined as P.W.1 and his side of evidence was closed on 11.02.2020, he filed both the petitions noted above. 3. Except opposing the petitions, no counters have been filed by the defendants. 4. A detailed order was passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.618 of 2025 observing that the plaintiff had claimed right under registered sale deeds executed by Sane Ranga Reddy in favour of Kanthamma and registered will executed by Kanthamma in his favour which were marked as Exs.A.3 and A.6 and therefore, there is no need to mark the photographs with C.D. as they do not prove either the title of the plaintiff or the defendants or the alleged encroachments. Consequently, I.A.No.620 of 2025 was dismissed as infructuous. 5. Aggrieved by the orders in both the petitions, the above said revision petitions were filed. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. This Court does not find any merit in these revision petitions as the observations of the trial Court are correct. 8. Hence, both the revision petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.24.02.2026 PNV