Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/2372/2025 of SHAMIRUNNISA BEGUM Vs M ANEES AHMED on 16 April 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2373 of 2025 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2372 of 2025 Between: 1. SHAMIRUNNISA BEGUM,
APHC010488352025
IN TH
FRIDAY,T
TWO
THE HONOURA
CIVIL R
CIVIL RE
CIVIL REVISION PETITI
Between:
1. SHAMIRUNNISA B
YEARS, HOUSE-W
NAGAR, GREEN PA
2. ZAKIR HUSSAIN,,
GOVERNMENT EM
SAROOR NAGAR,
3. MAZHAR HUSSAIN
PRIVATE EMPLOY
NAGAR, GREEN PA
1. M ANEES AHMED,
Housewife, R/o.Do
Andhra PradeshS/o
Housewife, R/o.Do
Andhra Pradesh
CRP No
E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL
O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
ABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMAL
REVISION PETITION NO: 2372/2025
Along with
EVISION PETITION No.2373 of 2025
ON No.2372 of 2025
BEGUM, W/O. C.M.AZMATHULLAH
WIFE, R/O.DOOR NO.B-58, ROAD NO
ARK COLONY HYDERABAD.
2. S/O. C.M.AZMATHULLAH, AGE
MPLOYEE R/O.DOOR NO.B-58,
GREEN PARK COLONY, HYDERAB
N,, S/O.C.M.AZMATHULLAH AGE
YEE, R/O.DOOR NO.B-58, ROAD NO
ARK COLONY, HYDERABAD.
...P
AND
, S/o. Makandar Akbar Shah aged a
oor No.14-772, Goolingspet, Chittoor
o. Makandar Akbar Shah aged ab
oor No.14-772, Goolingspet, Chittoor
RC,J
Nos.2372 & 2373 of 2025
DESH
L
LAPATI
H, AGED 77
O.9, SAROOR
ED 49 YEARS.
ROAD NO.9,
BAD.
D 45 YEARS.
O.9, SAROOR
PETITIONER(S)
about 42 years.
r town district,
bout 42 years.
r town district,
RC,J
...RESPONDENT
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 toThe above named petitioner begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition to this Honble Court, against the Order dated 04.11.2024 in lA No.368 of 2023 in O.S.No.237 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chittoor, for the following among other grounds 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 Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.UMADEVI MANCHALA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2373/2025
Between:
1. SHAMIRUNNISA BEGUM, W/O. C.M.AZMATHULLAH, AGED 77
YEARS. HOUSE-WIFE, R/O.DOOR NO.B-58, ROAD NO.9, SAROOR
NAGAR, GREEN PARK COLONY, HYDERABAD.
2. ZAKIR HUSSAIN,, S/O. C.M.AZMATHULLAH, AGED 49 YEARS.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE R/O.DOOR NO.B-58, ROAD NO.9, SAROOR NAGAR, GREEN PARK COLONY, HYDERABAD.
3. MAZHAR HUSSAIN, , S/O.C.M.AZMATHULLAH, AGED 45 YEARS.
PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O.DOOR NO.B-58, ROAD NO.9, SAROOR
NAGAR, GREEN PARK COLONY, HYDERABAD.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. M SAJIDUNNISA BEGUM, , W/o. Makandar Akbar Shah aged about 42
years. Housewife, R/o.Door No.14-772, Goolingspet, Chittoor town and district, Andhra Pradesh.
RC,J
...RESPONDENT
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 this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition to this Hon'ble Court, against the Order dated 04.11.2024 in lA No.364 of 2023 in O.S.No.229 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chittoor, 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 stay all further proceedings in lA No.364 of 2023 in O.S.No.229 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chittoor pending disposal of the above revision petition in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.UMADEVI MANCHALA
RC,J
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
COMMON ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions are filed aggrieved by the docket orders passed the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chitoor, whereby and whereunder the petitions filed by the revisionists under Order-XXVI, Rule- 3 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) were dismissed.
2. The petitioners are the defendants and respondents are plaintiffs.
3. The facts that led to filing of the Civil Revision Petitions in brief are that in the suits filed by the respondent of the Civil Revision Petitions, the petitioners, who were the defendants of the said suits, filed petitions under Order-XXVI, Rule-3 of Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of Advocate commissioner to record the evidence of defendant nos.1 and 2 and the said petitions were allowed and the same Advocate Commissioner was appointed in both the suits for the purpose mentioned in the petition. Later the Advocate Commissioner returned the warrant unexecuted along with a memo stating that the learned counsel for the defendants made a phone call to her putting the family members of the defendants in conference call and the defendants and family members after enquiring her as to whether she can read Urdu document, refused to lead evidence asking her to return the warrant. Thereupon the learned trial Judge, having observed that the defendants were called absent and no representation on their behalf, dismissed the petitions RC,J
directing the defendants to adduce evidence in open Court, vide docket orders dated 04.11.2024. The said dismissal orders were challenged in these Civil Revision Petitions.
4. Heard Smt. M.Uma Devi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Despite served with notices none represented the respondents in both the Civil Revision Petitions.
5. Smt. M.Uma Devi, learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the grounds of the Civil Revision Petitions, would contend that the learned trial Judge without giving opportunity to the petitioners to offer their explanation on the memo filed by the Advocate Commissioner dismissed the petitions for the reasons that there was no representation for the petitioners. She would further contend that there is impropriety and also the impugned orders suffers from procedural unfairness and accordingly prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petitions.
6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7. The impugned order shows that on the petition filed by the defendants, advocate commissioner was appointed to record the evidence of defendant nos. 1 and 2. It further shows that the earlier commissioner RC,J
returned the warrant on the ground that learned counsel for plaintiff raised an objection for execution of the warrant and pursuant to no objection reported by both the sides another Advocate Commissioner was appointed for recording the evidence of defendants 1 and 2. The Advocate commissioner returned the warrant along with memo stating that the defendants and their family members after enquiring whether she can read Urdu and stating that they need an Advocate commissioner who can read Urdu, asked her to return the warrant. The impugned orders further states that on that day the defendants were called absent and there was no representation on their behalf and this itself shows that the defendants are dragging the matter on one pretext or another without adducing their evidence and accordingly the petitions were dismissed, directing the defendants to adduce evidence in open court or else next steps would be ordered.
8. The court's action of passing an order based on an Advocate Commissioner's memo regarding non-cooperation without hearing the defendants raises issues of procedural fairness and violation of natural justice, as the defendants was not given an opportunity to contest the allegations. Declining to record the evidence through a commissioner and directing the defendants to appear in court and adduce evidence is a judicial decision and RC,J
therefore the same requires an opportunity of being heard shall be given to both sides.
9. The impugned orders passed solely based on the memo filed by the Advocate Commissioner regarding non-cooperation without affording an opportunity to the party against whom such non-cooperation is alleged is unsustainable since violates the principles of natural justice.
10. In view of the above, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted back to the trial Court for fresh consideration.
11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed, setting aside the impugned docket orders and the matters are remitted back to the trial Court to hear the defendants and also the plaintiff and then pass orders afresh. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
17TH April, 2026.
RR