Date of reserved for orders : -- Date of pronouncement : 29.06.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010012062023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE 29th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 66/2023 Between: 1. SUROJU KANAKA DURGA,, W/O. S.V. SATYANARAYANA, D/O. LATE DR.V.RAMA BRAHMACHARYULU @ DR. V.R.B.ACHARYA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. SUSHRUSHA BUILDING, OPP. K.C. PARK, DHARWAD, KARNATAKA STATE. 2. VEMULURI MADHAVI LATHA,, D/O. LATE DR.V.RAMA BRAHMACHARYULU @DR.V.R.B.ACHARYA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, DOCTOR, C/O. SRI PANDURANGA HOMEO CLINIC, NAKKALA ROAD, VIJAYAWADA. 3. VEMULURI PRASANNA,, D/O. LATE DR. V. RAMA BRAHMACHARYULU @ DR. V.R.B. ACHARYA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. SUSHRUSHA BUILDING, OPP. K.C. PARK, DHARWAD, KARNATAKA STATE. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. KUNAVARAPU LAKSHMI RADHA, (DIED) 2. MANDAVA SAROJINI, (DIED) 3. MUDUPU LAKSHMI, W/O. UMA MAHESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 48, YEARS, R/O.H.NO.17-1-391/T/3, 2ND FLOOR, SARASWATHI NAGAR, NEAR SISHUMANDHIR I IIGH SCHOOL, HYDERABAD-500059. 4. CH REKHA RANI, W/O.CH.SRINIVAS, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O.H.NO.17-1-391 /T/3, 2ND FLOOR, SARASWATHI NAGAR, NEAR SISHUMANDHIR HIGH SCHOOL, HYDERABAD- 500059. 5. SANGOJU VISHALA, W/O.S.CHALAPATHI RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O.HANUMAN JUNCTION, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 6. VEMULURI RAMA BRAHMACHARYULU, S/O.VENKATA CHARYULU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, DOCTOR, SUSRUSHA BUILDING, OPP.K.C.PARK, P.B. ROAD, DHARWADA TOWN, DHARWADA DISTRICT - 580 008, KARNATAKA STATE. 7. MEDIDI MURALI MOHANA CHARYULU, S/O.GOPALA CHARYULU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, BHEL, MIG, 3224, VIDYUT NAGAR, 2ND PHASE, RAMACHANDRAPURAM, HYDERABAD - 502 032. 8. SUROJU VIVEKANANDA SWAMY, S/O.RAMALAKSHMANA CHARYULU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, BHEL, MIG, 3224, VIDYUT NAGAR, 2ND PHASE, RAMACHANDRAPURAM, HYDERABAD - 502 032. 9. KANTAMNENI RAJAMMA, W/O.SUBBA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, BHEL, MIG, 3224, VIDYUT NAGAR, 2ND PHASE, RAMACHANDRAPURAM, HYDERABAD - 502 032. 10. KAJA RAJARATNAM, W/O.SAMBASIVA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, BHEL, MIG, 3224, VIDYUT NAGAR, 2ND PHASE, RAMACHANDRAPURAM, HYDERABAD - 502 032. 11. VUYYURU VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O.BUTCHAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, D.NO.21-4-2, PENUMATCHA STREET, MUTYALAMPADU, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 12. VEMUNURI RAMALINGESWARA RAO, S/O.SREERAMA MURTHY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/O.D.NO.21-1-15, MUTHYALAMPADU, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 13. MUSUNURI DURGA KUMARI, W/O. NOT KNOWN, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O. ADAVINEKKALAM, AGIRIPALLI MANDAL, NUZVID, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 14. VEMULURI SUBBA LAKSHMI, W/O. LATE DR.V.RAMA BRAHMACHARYULU @ DR.V.R.B.ACHARYA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. SUSHRUSHA BUILDING, OPP. K.C. PARK, DHARWAD, KARNATAKA STATE. ...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 aggrieved by the Order Dt.13.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.35/2022 in O.S.No.540/2008, VI Addl. Senior Civil judge, Vijayawada 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 grant Stay the Proceedings in the suit O.S.No.540/ 2008 on the file of VI Addl., Senior Civil Judge Court, Vijayawada till the disposal of the C.R.P., and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. NARASIMHA RAO M R L Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ITHAPU SUBRAHMANYESWARA RAO 2. 3. PILLA RAVI The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: The defendants 10 to 12 in the suit filed the above civil revision petition aggrieved by the order dated 13.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.35 of 2022 in O.S.No.540 of 2008 on the file of the learned VI Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. 2. Heard Sri M.R.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. J. Sridevi, learned counsel representing Sri I. Subrahmanyeswara Rao, learned counsel appeared for respondents 6, 8 & 14. Page 4 of 6 3. The respondents 1 to 5 herein, being the plaintiffs, filed the aforementioned suit seeking partition. Respondents 6 to 14, being the defendants, are contesting the suit by filing a written statement. Pending the suit, the 2nd plaintiff died, and the petitioners herein came on record as defendants 10 to 12 in the suit. 4. The suit is coming up for arguments. At this juncture, the defendants 10 to 12/the petitioners, filed I.A.No.35 of 2022 under Order 8 Rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C), to receive the death certificate of the 2nd plaintiff/2nd respondent and a registered will said to have been executed by the deceased 2nd plaintiff/2nd respondent. The same was opposed by respondents 7, 8, 11 & 12 herein. The Trial Court, by order dated 13.09.2022, dismissed the application. 5. Initially, an interim order was granted on 06.01.2023 for a period of six weeks. Thereafter, the interim order was not extended. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the documents filed along with the interlocutory application are necessary for proper adjudication of the suit. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the documents filed have nothing to do with the litigation and the application was filed only to drag on the proceedings. 8. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, after the death of the 2nd plaintiff/2nd respondent, the petitioners herein came on record as defendants 10 to 12 in the suit, and they are claiming 1/3rd share each by virtue of a Will said to have been executed by the deceased 2nd plaintiff/2nd respondent. Unless the share of the 2nd plaintiff/2nd respondent is settled in the suit, the allotment of any share to the petitioners herein does not arise. The Trial Court, by assigning proper reasons, dismissed the I.A.No.35 of 2022. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in the civil revision petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. Page 5 of 6 9. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 29.06.2026 TVN Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 59 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.66 OF 2023 Date: 29.06.2026 TVN