Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 23338 (AP)

V. JAYARAM REDDY v. P. MUNASWAMY REDDY

CRP/2028/2025 · 2026-02-05

Ninala Jayasurya

Original Suitbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010417482025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION N Between: V.Jayaram Reddy, S/o Occ:Business, R/o.Bangareddipalli Village, Diguvamasapalli Post, Chittoor Mandal and District. AND 1. P.Munaswamy Reddy R/o.Bangareddipalli Village, Mandal & District, and others Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite servic none entered appearance on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3/ plaintiffs. 2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 17.7.2025 in I.A. No.121 of 2025 in O.S. No.203 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) 3. The petitioner, who is the defendant No.1 in the said suit, filed the I.A. No.121 of 2025 seeking permission to file additional written IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION N0.2028 OF 2025 , S/o.Late Perumal Reddy, Aged Bangareddipalli Village, Diguvamasapalli Post, Chittoor Mandal and District. P.Munaswamy Reddy, S/o.P.Perumal Reddy, Aged 63 years, R/o.Bangareddipalli Village, Diguvamasapalli Post, Chittoor Mandal & District, and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.G.Sekhar Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: ----- The Court made the following ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite servic none entered appearance on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3/ The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 17.7.2025 in I.A. No.121 of 2025 in O.S. No.203 of 2016 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chittoor. The petitioner, who is the defendant No.1 in the said suit, filed the I.A. No.121 of 2025 seeking permission to file additional written IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA 2028 OF 2025 Late Perumal Reddy, Aged 66 years, Bangareddipalli Village, Diguvamasapalli Post, ...Petitioner S/o.P.Perumal Reddy, Aged 63 years, Diguvamasapalli Post, Chittoor ...Respondents Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice, none entered appearance on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3/ The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 17.7.2025 in I.A. No.121 of 2025 in O.S. No.203 of 2016 on the file of the The petitioner, who is the defendant No.1 in the said suit, filed the I.A. No.121 of 2025 seeking permission to file additional written 2 statement. From a reading of the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., it is noted that in the light of the amendment of the plaint vide orders dated 08.8.2023 in I.A. No.365 of 2022, the petitioner/defendant No.1 sought permission to file the additional written statement. The reason for not filing the additional written statement immediately was that the petitioner was suffering from ill-health and as such could not approach the counsel for preparing the additional written statement. However, it is not in dispute that I.A. No.365 of 2022 was filed seeking amendment of the plaint only with regard to bringing the legal heirs of the deceased defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5 on record, and the said I.A., was allowed on 08.8.2023. 4. The learned Trial Judge after considering the said aspect and also in view of the delay of 1½ years in seeking permission to file additional written statement, opined that there are no valid reasons and further that no additional written statement was filed along with I.A. No.121 of 2025 seeking permission to file the same, dismissed the said I.A. 5. Having gone through the order of the Trial Court, which contains cogent reasons, this Court is not inclined to take a different view. 6. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pendig, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J February 06, 2026 vasu