CRP/2981/2025 of Gangarapu Naga Venkata Swamy Naidu, Vs RATAKONDA RAJENDRA PRASAD (DIED) on 6 March 2026

1. GANGARAPU S/o. G. V.SUDHAR R/o. GANGANNAG MANDAL, CHITTO

1. RATAKONDA RAJE

2. RATAKONDA NA RAJENDRA PRASA AND 2 REP. BY S/o. LATE G. R/o.D.No.16/397-A, MANDAL, CHITTO

3. RATAKONDA VE RAJENDRA PRASA HIS GUARDIAN, RATAKONDA RAJE D.NO.32, NOWK VISAKHAPATNAM, PASSED IN I.A.NO.

4. RATAKONDA VAN AGED ABOUT MADANAPALLE M

E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) AY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT ABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYAS EVISION PETITION No: 2981 of 2025 NAGA VENKATA SWAMY RSHAN CHOWDARY, AGED ABOU GARIPALLU

BASINIKONDA, M OR DISTRICT, A.P. AND ENDRA PRASAD DIED, (DIED) AGA PADMA DEEPTHY, D/o AD, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, (PL Y THEIR GPA HOLDER, G. NAV JANARDHAN, AGED ABOUT

KAMMAPALLE VILLAGE, M OR DISTRICT, A.P.) NKATA RANGA RAHUL, S/O. AD, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS MIN NEXT FRIEND MOTHER R. ENDRA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 46 KA NAGAR, PEDDA WALT A.P. (DECLARED AS MAJOR AS .472 OF 2015, DATED 05.09.2017) I, W/O. LATE RATAKONDA RAJEND

YEARS, R/o.DIGUVA K ANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. (4 DESH

H SURYA

Y NAIDU, UT 65 YEARS, MADANAPALLE ...PETITIONER o.RATAKONDA LAINTIFF No.1 VEEN KUMAR,

YEARS, MADANAPALLE RATAKONDA NOR. REP. BY VANI, W/O. 6 YEARS, R/O. TAIR ROAD, PER ORDERS DRA PRASAD, KAMMAPALLE, 4TH PLAINTIFF

BEING THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE 1ST PLAINTIFF IS ADDED AS PER ORDERS PASSED IN I.A.No.390 OF 2022 DATED 07.03.2023)

5. G.UGANDHAR RANGA REDDY, G. V.SUDHARSHAN CHOWDARY, AGED ABOUT

YEARS, R/o. GANGANNAGARIPALLU BASINIKONDA, MADANAPALLE MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT, A.P.

6. RAMINENI ARUNA KUMARI, W/o. R.VIJAYENDRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/o. D. No.16-433, NIMMANAPALLE ROAD, MADANAPALLE TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, A.P.

7. G RAMADEVI, W/O. G. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. BASINIKONDA, NIMMANAPALLE ROAD, MADANAPALLE TOWN CHITTOOR DISTRICT, A.P.

8. R KOWSALENDRA RAO, S/O. LATE R.VIJAYENDRA RAO, AGED 44 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.16-433, NIMMANAPALLE ROAD, MADANAPALLE TOWN AND POST, CHITTOOR DISTRICT (5TH DEFENDANT BEING THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE 3RD DEFENDANT IS ADDED AS PER THE ORDER PASSED IN I.A.NO. 187 OF2022, DATED 02.02.2023.) ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. M/s.CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S): Mr.JITENDRA KANYALUR

The Court made the following order:

Heard Mr.Sk.Md.Umar Abdullah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.Jitendra Kanyalur, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4.

2. The present Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the Docket Order dated 26.09.2025 passed in O.S.No.17 of 2007 by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Madanapalle. Vide said order, the learned Trial Court closed the Interlocutory Application No.478 of 2019 in O.S.No.17 of 2007.

3. The petitioner / defendant No.1 in the said suit filed I.A.No.478 of 2019 under Order XIII Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘C.P.C.’), seeking to send for Exs.B1 to B14 in O.S.No.224 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, which was dismissed on 26.02.1996 so as to mark them as documents in O.S.No.17 of 2007 during his evidence. After hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court allowed the said I.A., by an Order dated 16.07.2019 opining that the documents i.e., Exs.B1 to B14 referred to above are relevant for just decision of the case. The said order has attained finality.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the above said order dated 16.07.2019, a letter appears to have been addressed to the learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor for summoning the records from the Central Record Room and a communication was addressed by the District Court to the effect that the information provided to summon the records does not tally and is not in consonance with the official records.

5. The learned counsel while drawing the attention to the relevant material filed along with the Revision Petition submits that the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge referring to certain material discrepancies as set out in the impugned order, closed the petition filed under Order XIII Rule 10 and posted the matter for the evidence on defendants’ side. He submits that in the light of the material placed on record, the order under challenge is not sustainable. He also submits that before passing the impugned order, no opportunity was afforded and the order under Revision is liable to be set aside on that ground also.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents though sought to impress upon the Court that the petitioner can as well obtain certified copies of the relevant documents from the concerned Court, however has not disputed that the order in I.A.No.478 of 2019 dated 16.03.2019 attained finality. Be that as it may.

7. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. The only point that arises for appreciation is that whether the order under Revision is not sustainable and warrants interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

8. The material discrepancies which prompted the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge to pass the impugned docket order, is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

“a) The appeal mentioned, A.S.No.54/2000, was not filed against the judgment in O.S.No.224/1988. Instead, it was filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.311/1994.

b) The date of disposal of O.S.No.224/1988 was noted in the records as 15.05.2000, not 26.02.1996 as mentioned in the originating request.

c) The suit numbers O.S.No.224/1988 and A.S.No.54/2000 are not consistent with each other in terms of the parties involved or the dates of disposal.”

9. The above said discrepancies appears to have been referred to in the Communication / Official memorandum received from the District Court, Chittoor. Except that there is no basis nor an independent examination of the said discrepancies, much less by giving an opportunity to the petitioner herein, who in fact on the earlier occasion secured an order in I.A.No.478 of 2019. A reading of the affidavit filed in support of the said I.A., would go to show that the relevant details with regard to disposal of suit O.S.No.224 of 1988 vide Order dated 26.02.1996 and the appeal thereon in A.S.No.54 of 2000 were clearly set out. There is no denial in the counter, much less with regard to the date of disposal of suit i.e., 26.02.1996 or the appeal A.S.No.54 of 2000 on 19.09.2005 filed against the Judgment and Decree in the said O.S.No.224 of 1988.

10. That apart, the material along with the Revision Petition establishes that against the Judgment in Decree in O.S.No.224 of 1988, dated 26.02.1996, A.S.No.54 of 2000 was preferred and the learned 7th Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Madanapalle, dismissed the same along with the cross objections vide Judgment dated 19.09.2005. If that be the position, it is not known as to how the above stated discrepancies were noted in the Official

Memorandum with reference to which the order under Revision was passed. Even assuming that there are certain discrepancies, passing of an order which has the effect of virtually dissolving the order in I.A.No.478 of 2019 without giving an opportunity to the successful applicant in the said I.A./ petitioner herein, is not tenable. Had the matter been examined after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, perhaps the order under challenge could not have been passed. Reference to the legal maxims in the impugned order merits appreciation, but the same are misapplied in the present fact situation.

11. This Court, having examined the matter with reference to the material available on record, finds merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and it is a fit case to exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.09.2025 is set aside and the learned Principal Civil Judge shall take necessary steps for calling the relevant documents in terms of the orders dated 16.07.2019 in I.A.No.478 of 2019.

13. With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, all pending applications shall stand closed.

__________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

Dt. 07.03.2026 BLV

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 2981 of 2025 Date: 07.03.2026 BLV