APHC010460162025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2260/2025 Between: 1. KODURI CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO,, S/O ADINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC- ENGINEER, R/O. ONGOLE CITY, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. A V SATYANARAYANA, (DIED) 2. AKUTHOTI SRI LAKSHMI, W/O LATE VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HINDU, HOUSEWIFE, AGED 62 YEARS, R/O. GUDUR, NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. AKUTHOTI HARI PRASADA RAO, , S/O LATE VENKATA SATYANARAYANA HINDU, BUSINESS, AGED 41 YEARS, R/O. GUDUR, NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. NAGASURI LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O BABU RATNA KUMAR, HINDU, BUSINESS, AGED 44 YEARS, R/O. GUDUR, NELLORE DISTRICT. 5. ADURI SWATHI, W/O KAMESWARA RAO, HINDU, HOUSEWIFE, AGED 39 YEARS, R/O. NELLORE, NELLORE DISTRICT. 6. KODURI AUDINARAYANA, (DIED) 7. KODURI VENKATASWAMY, S/O AUDINARAYA HINDU, BUSINESS, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O LAWYERPET, ONGOLE TOWN, 2 PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 8. KODURI SUDARSAN RAO, S/O AUDINARAYANA, HINDU, BUSINESS, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O LAWYERPET, ONGOLE TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 9. PADARTHI PADMAVATHI, W/O SRINIVASA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O AMMANABROLU VILLAGE, N.G. PADU MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 toBeing aggrieved by the Order Dt. 22.07.2025 passed in I.A No. 148 of 2025 in O.S No. 286 of 2009 on the file of the court of learned l-Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ongole, the above named petitioner prefer this memorandum of Civil Revision Petition IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S No. 286 of 2009 on the file of the court of l-Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ongole, pending disposal of the main Civil Revision Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ANANDA KUMAR VEJANDLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K JYOTHI PRASAD 2. The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2260/2025 ORDER The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 22.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.148 of 2025 in O.S.No.286 of 2009 on the file of Court of learned I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ongole. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner herein is the 2nd defendant, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are the plaintiffs and respondent Nos. 6 to 9 are defendant Nos. 1, 3 to 5 in the suit. For the sake of convenience of this Court, the parties are referred herein as arrayed in the Suit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.2 submits that the plaintiffs filed suit for specific performance basing on a sale agreement dated 04.11.1992. Upon receipt of summons from the court, the defendant No.1, 2 and 4 filed their respective written statements. Defendant No.3 remained exparte. While, defendant No.5 adopted the written statement of the defendant No.4. Thereafter, the matter was posted for the defendants evidence. 4 5. Leaned counsel for the petitioner/ defendant No.2 submits that during the preparation of the chief examination affidavit, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner/ defendant No.2 that the earlier issues framed by the trial Court did not adequately reflect the real controversies arising from the pleadings of both parties. Accordingly, prayed the trial court to frame the additional issues which arise directly from the pleadings and further submitted that the same would not cause any prejudice to the parties. For which, the petitioner/ defendant No.2 filed an interlocutory application i.e., I.A.No.148 of 2025 under Order XIV Rule 5(1) and Section 151 of CPC seeking for framing of the additional issues apart from the issues framed by the trial court in the interest of justice. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the additional issues framed for consideration by the petitioner/ defendant No.2 before the trial court are as follows: 1. Whether the Suit is bad for non-joinder of all persons who executed the sale agreement dated 04.11.1992 in favour of the 1st plaintiff? 2. Whether Sri Lakshmi Venkata Ramana Dall and Oil Mill was in existence on the date of the sale agreement dated 04.11.1992? 5 3. Whether the 1st plaintiff was entitled to enter into the agreement dated 04.11.1992 without the approval or resolution of Sri Lakshmi Venkata Ramana Dall and Oil Mill? 4. Whether Sri Lakshmi Venkata Ramana Dall and Oil Mill was registered body at the relevant time? 5. Whether the 1st defendant has half share in the suit schedule property as per the registered Sale Deed No.268 of 1970? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to purchase 55 paise share out of 200 paise without the existence of Sri Lakshmi Venkata Ramana Dall and Oil Mill? 7. Whether the 1st defendant received consideration under the sale agreement dated 04.11.1992? 8. Whether the plaintiff was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property at the time of filing the suit? 9. Whether there is a cause of action for the suit? 7. He further submits that without considering the same, the trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground the trial court confirmed the earlier issues after having comprehensive review with the documents and material placed before the court and that are sufficient for adjudication of the Suit. He further submits that the said order of dismissal of IA is contrary to law and liable to be set aside. 6 8. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material placed on record. It appears that the Trial Court passed the impugned order after confirming the issues already framed upon a comprehensive review of the pleadings and documents on record. It further appears that some of additional issues proposed by the petitioner/Defendant No. 2 were found to be either irrelevant, immaterial to the subject matter of the suit on face of it. Majority of the issues are directly or indirectly similar in substance to the issues already framed by the trial Court. It further appears that while dismissing the said application, the trial court held as follows: ‘This Court also reviewed the pleadings, the record evidence, including the plaintiffs Cross Examination and the Petitioner’s application. A careful perusal reveals that all material facts underlying proposed additional issues were thoroughly traversed in the pleadings and exhaustively covered during cross examination within the scope of the existing issues. The jurisprudential aim of the trial is to secure substantive justice rather than, procedural technicalities. Framing additional issues at this stage would only serve to extend the proceedings without enhancing clarity. Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC empowers the court to amend or add issues at any point before decree if necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties. However, this authority is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously, it should not be used to prolong litigation when the material matters are already in dispute. 7 Moreover, this petition was filed after five adjournments during the defendant evidence, well after issues were framed and after exhaustive cross examination of the plaintiff. The petitioner has failed to offer any satisfactory explanation as to why these issues was clearly reflected in the pleadings and known from outset were not raised earlier. Courts have consistently held that belated application under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC must be supported by due diligence and a reasonable cause, mere delay or tactical silence is considered fatal to such applications.” On perusal of the issues framed by the trial Court as well as the issues framed and placed before the Court in I.A., it is observed that the trial Court had framed the most appropriate and more comprehensive issues for determination of issues and disputes between the parties and to arrive just and equitable decision and reasonable conclusion. It is further observed that most of the issues in application are one way or other similar to the issues of the trial Court. It seems that entire evidence of plaintiff already completed and defendants evidence also completed except cross examination of defendant No.2. It further appears that the present application has been filed only to drag the matter, particularly when the matter is posted for the cross-examination of the defendant No.2 and the petitioner herein appear to be creating obstacles in the disposal of this identified old suit by way of filing vexatious petition. The original suit was instituted in the year, 2009. Therefore, at this juncture in a suit of the year, 2009 the trial court rightly observed and held all the issues proposed are covered one way or other with the issues already framed and issues of trial Court are sufficient and more comprehensive and need not be 8 intervened. Hence, the order of the trial court is supported by sound reasons and there is no ambiguity or perversity as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Therefore, the order of the trial Court is in accordance with law and is supported by the facts and circumstances of the case and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 18.02.2026 BSP 9 265 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2260/2025 18.02.2026 BSP