Date of reserved for orders : --- Date of pronouncement :10.07.2026 Date of uploading :16.07.2026 APHC010542062025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY, THE 10th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2742/2025 Between: 1. CHIKKALA SURYA VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O.CH.KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCIPRIVATE EMPLOYEE R/O.D.NO.2-153, TADERUM VILLAGE BHIMAVARAM MANDAL, W.G.DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH REP.BY HIS G.P.A. HOLDER CHIKKALA KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O SURYA VENKATESWARLU, HINDU, CULTIVATION, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS. ...PETITIONER AND 1. VALAVALA TULASI RAO DIED, (DIED) 2. VALAVALA VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, S/O LATE VALAVALA TULASI RAO, HINDU, EMPLOYEE, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O D.NO.1-2, IRUSUMANDA VILLAGE, MALIKIPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. VALAVALA JYOTHI, W/O SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, HINDU, HOUSEWIFE, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O D.NO.1-2, IRUSUMANDA VILLAGE, MALIKIPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. MANGENA NAGABHUSHANA RAO, S/O VENUGOPALA RAO, HINDU, CULTIVATION, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O D.NO.1-210, LAKKAVARAM VILLAGE, MALIKIPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, IRUSUMANDA, MALIKIPURAM MANDAL, E.G.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 to begs to present the above Civil Revision Petition questioning the Order dt. 08-09-2025 passed in I.A.No.524 of 2025 in O.S.No.11 of 2016 on the file of the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Razole, East Godavari District 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No.11 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Razole, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh pending disposal of the above civil revision petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. YASWANTH GADE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PONNADA SREE VYAS 2. The Court made the following order: Heard Sri Yaswanth Gade, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri N.Shiva Sai Krishna, learned counsel representing Sri Ponnada Sree Vyas, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 2. Assailing the order dated 08.09.2025 in I.A.No.524 of 2025 in O.S.No.11 of 2016 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Razole, the plaintiff in the suit filed the above revision. 3. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.11 of 2016 against the defendants for a declaration of title and recovery of possession of the property. In the plaint, it was pleaded that the plaintiff purchased the property from the 1st defendant under a registered sale deed dated 07.02.2011. His name was mutated, and he started paying taxes. The plaintiff let out the plaint schedule property to the 1st defendant on a monthly rent under an oral lease. The 2nd defendant is making attempts to raise some construction on the plaint schedule property, and the 1st defendant was not paying the rent regularly. The plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 29.01.2015 to the defendants 1 and 2 and another notice dated 10.06.2015. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued another notice dated 23.11.2015 and filed the suit for recovery of the payable amount. The defendants filed a written statement contesting the suit. The trial in the suit was completed, and the suit is coming up for arguments. 4. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.524 of 2025 under Order VII Rule 14(3) and Section 151 CPC to receive certain documents i.e., tax receipts in the name of the 1st defendant and their demand notices. The said application was opposed by defendants 2 and 3. The trial Court dismissed the application on 08.09.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the revision petitioner assigned reasons for receiving the documents. However, the trial Court failed to consider the same. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent supported the order passed by the trial Court. 7. The trial Court relied upon Lakshmi Priya Exports (India) Private Limited, Chittoor and others vs. Ramalingam Mills Limited, Chittoor [2016 (3) ALD 658)] and dismissed the application. 8. The trial Court also observed that there was no reference to the documents in the plaint and that the application was filed when the suit was coming up for arguments. 9. Since the trial Court has considered all these aspects and exercised the jurisdiction vested in it, this Court doesn’t find any illegality or irregularity in the order dated 08.09.2025 in I.A.No.524 of 2025 in O.S.No.11 of 2016 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Razole, warranting interference. Hence, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. Since the suit is of the year 2016, the learned trial Court shall expedite the trial, in view of the circular issued by this Court vide R.O.C.No.560/OP/CELL/ 2022, dated 23.11.2022 and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with law. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dated: 10.07.2026 SNI Whether the order is: Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 92 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2742 of 2025 Dated: 10.07.2026 SNI