APHC010572312023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: 1. KARLAPUDI STYA KRISHNA VARA PRASAD RAO, S/O.LATE VENKATESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, PROPERTIES, PORANKI, YSRTADIGADAPA MUNICIPALITY, KRISHNA DISTRICT 1. VELAGA KRISHNA RAO, S/O SITARAMAIAH, AGED YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O H.NO.5 YSRTADIGADAPA MUNICIPALITY OFFICE, PORANKI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. PIN 521137 2. TATINENI SURRENDRA, S/O.SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC EMPLOYEE, R/O H.NO.5 JABLLLI HOSPITAL, PORANKI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DIST. PIN 521137 3. PARVATANENI MANOJ, S/O.RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O H.NO.27 BYREDDYRAMANNA STREET B/H BUCKINGHAMPET POST OFFICE, GOVERNORPET, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DIST. PIN 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 order passed by the XIII ADDITIONAL District AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3017/2023 KARLAPUDI STYA KRISHNA VARA PRASAD RAO, S/O.LATE VENKATESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, PROPERTIES, PORANKI, YSRTADIGADAPA MUNICIPALITY, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND VELAGA KRISHNA RAO, S/O SITARAMAIAH, AGED YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O H.NO.5 YSRTADIGADAPA MUNICIPALITY OFFICE, PORANKI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. PIN 521137 TATINENI SURRENDRA, S/O.SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC EMPLOYEE, R/O H.NO.5-245, SIVALAYAM STREET NEAR JABLLLI HOSPITAL, PORANKI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DIST. PIN PARVATANENI MANOJ, S/O.RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O H.NO.27 BYREDDYRAMANNA STREET B/H BUCKINGHAMPET POST OFFICE, GOVERNORPET, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DIST. PIN ...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 to set aside order passed by the XIII ADDITIONAL District AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI KARLAPUDI STYA KRISHNA VARA PRASAD RAO, S/O.LATE VENKATESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, PROPERTIES, PORANKI, YSRTADIGADAPA MUNICIPALITY, ...PETITIONER VELAGA KRISHNA RAO, S/O SITARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O H.NO.5-501, B/H YSRTADIGADAPA MUNICIPALITY OFFICE, PORANKI, TATINENI SURRENDRA, S/O.SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 245, SIVALAYAM STREET NEAR JABLLLI HOSPITAL, PORANKI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DIST. PIN PARVATANENI MANOJ, S/O.RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O H.NO.27-36-4, BYREDDYRAMANNA STREET B/H BUCKINGHAMPET POST OFFICE, GOVERNORPET, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DIST. PIN 52002 ...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 to set aside order passed by the XIII ADDITIONAL District AND 2 Sessions Judge Vijayawada, Krishna Dist., passed in LA.No.154 /2022 in .S.No.138/2012 dt.28-07-2023, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 to Stay all further proceedings in O.S.Nb.138/2012 on the file of XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge: Vijayawada, NTR Dist., pending disposal of the main revision in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V SUBRAHMANYAM 3 The Court made the following order: Assailing the correctness and legality of the order dated 28.07.2023 passed by learned XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District in Interlocutory Application No.154 of 2022 in Original Suit No.138 of 2012, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts that led to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are that: The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.138 of 2012 on the file of the Court of XIII Additional District Judge at Vijayawada for partition. The defendant contested the matter and filed written statement. After framing issues, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.154 of 2022, under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC, seeking to frame an additional issue as to whether the suit is maintainable by paying fixed court fee of Rs.200/- by each of the plaintiffs under Section 34(2) of A.P Court fee and suit valuation Act. The Court below, by order dated 28.07.2023, dismissed the said application on the ground that the plaintiffs had filed the suit for partition claiming constructive joint possession of schedule properties and as such, had paid court fee under Section 34(2) of AP Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. The Court further held that the question as to whether the Court fee paid is correct can be decided only during the trial and that the Court has the power and authority to review the court fee and may direct payment of the 4 requisite fee even at the stage of granting suit relief. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri M.M.M. Srinivasarao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision and the contents of the affidavit filed before the Court below, contended that the plaintiffs, who are unconnected with the family of the defendant, have filed the suit by falsely alleging that the father of defendant Karlapudi Venkateswararao executed a registered Will dated 20.10.2004 and that under the said alleged Will, it is claimed that item Nos.1 and 4 of the plaint schedule properties were alleged to be bequeathed to 1st plaintiff, item Nos.5 and 6 of the plaint schedule properties were alleged to be bequeathed to the 2nd plaintiff and item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule properties were alleged to be bequeathed to 3rd plaintiff. He further submitted that the petitioner herein in his written statement in the suit specifically contended that that the alleged legatees under the alleged Will are neither co-owners nor coparceners and therefore cannot claim joint ownership or seek partition of the property by paying fixed court fee of Rs.200/- each under Section 34(2) of A.P Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act. He further contended that the plaintiffs have to pay ad valorem Court fee on the market value of the property. He further contended that the Court below, without framing an issue regarding the payment of court fee and maintainability of the suit without paying ad valorem court fee, simply framed an issue whether the Will 5 executed by Karlapudi Venkateswararo is true, valid and binding on the defendants. He further contended that the plaintiffs have pleaded in the plaint that the son of the defendant had already filed a partition suit in O.S.No.59 of 2006 during the lifetime of the defendant’s father. He further contended that admittedly the petitioner herein is the 2nd defendant in the said suit and that the parties therein are in joint possession of the properties and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek for partition and separate possession on the basis of the alleged bequeath made under the alleged Will. He further contended that after filing of the present frivolous suit by the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.59 of 2006, the plaintiffs herein have taken steps to implead themselves as defendants in the said pending suit. He further contended that the impugned order does not disclose any appropriate reasons for not framing the said issue as preliminary issue. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Court below has rightly dismissed the application. He further submitted that the suit was filed in the year 2011 and the petitioner filed the present application after a lapse of 11 years. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6 7. The main point that arises for consideration is whether the trial Court committed any jurisdictional error in refusing to frame an additional issue relating to court fee and maintainability of the suit at this stage. 8. It is a settled principle of law that under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC, the Court has discretion to amend issues or frame additional issues at any stage of the proceedings, if it is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. However, such discretion is to be exercised judiciously and not mechanically, particularly when the application is belated. 9. The respondents herein, who are plaintiffs have categorically pleaded that they are in constructive joint possession of the suit schedule properties and have sought partition. Based on such pleadings, they have paid fixed court fee under Section 34(2) of the Act. Whether such plea is ultimately sustainable or not is a matter to be decided during the course of trial. 10. The trial Court has rightly observed that the correctness of the court fee paid can be examined at the time of trial and even at the stage of final disposal. The Court is empowered to direct payment of deficit court fee, if any, at any stage before passing the decree. The issue involves mixed questions of law and fact, particularly with regard to possession and status of the parties, and therefore need not be tried as a preliminary issue. 11. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited. Unless the order impugned suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error, this Court would not interfere with 7 interlocutory orders passed by the trial Court. In the present case, the order of the trial Court does not suffer from any such infirmity warranting interference. The trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously and assigned cogent reasons for rejecting the application. 12. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no merit in the Civil Revision Petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 12.03.2026 MP 8 298 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3017 of 2023 Dated 12.03.2026 MP