APHC010212122025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE 21st DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1143/2025 Between: 1. ETHAMUKKALA SUREKHA @ E.SUREKHA REDDY,, W/O SIVAJI REDDY. AGE 62 YEARS, OCOHOUSE WIFE, R/O. D.NO. 24-424-1, SARASWATHI NAGAR, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KODURU PURANDHAR REDDY, S/O VENKATA RAM REDDY, AGE 65 YEARS, OCOBUSINESS, R/O. D.NO. 1-1038, BANGLATHOTA, NAWABPET, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. TANGUTURI MADHAVI, W/O HAH CHANDRA REDDY, AGE 60 YEARS, OCOHOUSE WIFE, R/O. FLAT NO. 2A, 2ND FLOOR, PRASHANTHA KUTEER, SARASWATHI NAGAR, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. KODURU VARUN KUMAR REDDY, S/O PURANDHAR REDDY, AGE 42 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO. 1-1038, BANGLATHOTA, NAWABPET, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. MANNEMALA VYSHNAVI, W/O M.SIVA CHARAN, AGE 39 YEARS, OCC SOFTWARE EMPLOYEE, R/O. PLOT NO. 405, SRILAKSHMI APARTMENT, 5TH CROSS, RUSTHUM BOG, BENGALURU NORTH, VIMANAPURA, KARNATAKA STATE. 5. BINDU MUKTHI, W/O THUPILI AVINISH, AGE 38 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE, R/O. VILLA 89, LEGEND CHIMES, KOKAPETA, K.V.RANGAREDDY DISTRICT, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA. 6. OBBAREDDY KRISHNAREDDY, S/O BALARAMI REDDY, AGE 77 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURIST, R/O. PLOT NO. 109, A-BLOCK, SIRI GARDENS, PEDDA CHERUKURU, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 7. MANUBOLU SOBHA RANI, W/O RAMMOHAN REDDY, AGE 39 YEARS, OCC-HOUSE WIFE, R/O. PLOT NO. 109, A-BLOCK, SIRI GARDENS, PEDDA CHERUKURU, SPSR NELLORE 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 allow this CRP by setting aside the Order dated 17-03-2025, passed in I.A. No. 482 of 2023 in O.S. No. 27 of 2023 passed on the file of Hon'ble IV Additional District Judge Nellore 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. 27 of 2023 pending on the file of Hon’ble IV Additional District Judge Nellore pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V NITESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY 2. The Court made the following order: Heard Sri N.Sai Akash, learned counsel representing Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents 6 and 7. 2. The plaintiff in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 17.03.2025 in I.A.No.482 of 2023 in O.S.No.27 of 2023 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Nellore. 3. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.27 of 2023 initially against defendants 1 to 3 seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties and allotment of a 1/3rd share. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement. Defendants 1 and 3 filed a separate written statement. 4. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.482 of 2023 under Order I Rule 10 r/w 151 CPC to amend the plaint and to implead the proposed parties as defendants 4 to 7. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was pleaded that the proposed parties purchased item Nos.1 to 7 of the plaint schedule properties under documents and that the plaintiff came to know about the transactions after filing of the suit. A counter was filed by the 6th respondent/proposed party opposing the application. The respondents 1 and 3 filed a separate counter. 5. The trial Court, by an order dated 17.03.2025, relying upon Kasturi vs. Uyyamperumal and others1 dismissed the application. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kasturi’s case has no application to the present case, as the present suit is filed for partition. In Kasturi’s case, the Hon’ble Apex Court considered an application filed by a third party seeking to come on record as a party defendant in the suit for specific performance. He would further submit that the proposed parties purchased item Nos.1 to 7 of the plaint schedule properties. Hence, they are proper and necessary parties. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 6 and 7 would submit that the revision petitioner, though aware of the transactions, did not 1 (2005) 6 SCC 733 array the parties in the first instance. Subsequently, the application was filed. The trial Court considered all these aspects and dismissed the application. 8. The point for consideration is: i) Whether the proposed parties are proper and necessary parties? ii) Whether the order dated 17.03.2025 in I.A.No.482 of 2023 in O.S.No.27 of 2023 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Nellore, suffers from any illegality? 9. As seen from the averments in the plaint, initially the suit was instituted against defendants 1 to 3. In the plaint, item Nos.1 to 8 are shown as the schedule properties. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.482 of 2023, it was pleaded that the plaintiff came to know about the transactions relating to item Nos. 1 to 7 after filing of the suit. Along with the application, the plaintiff also filed certified copies of the registered documents etc. In fact, the application was filed immediately after filing of the suit, and there is no delay in filing the application to implead the proposed parties as party defendants to the suit. The judgment of Kasturi’s case has no application to the facts of this case. Even the proposed parties are asserting rights under subsequent transactions relating to the same property, and therefore, they are proper and necessary parties. 10. The trial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested with it. Therefore, the order under revision warrants interference. Accordingly, the order dated 17.03.2025 in I.A.No.482 of 2023 in O.S.No.27 of 2023 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Nellore, is hereby set aside. I.A.No.482 of 2023 stands allowed. The plaintiff shall file a neat copy of the amended plaint as mandated under Order VI Rule 18 after receipt of a copy of this order. 11. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dated: 21.07.2026 SNI 114 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1143 of 2025 Dated: 21.07.2026 SNI