Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/1420/2025 of ADUSUMILLI LAKSHMI Vs ADUSUMILLI PADMA(DIED) on 18 December 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3163] FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1420/2025 Between: 1. ADUSUMILLI LAKSHMI, ADUSUMILLI
APHC010300612025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1420/2025
Between:
1. ADUSUMILLI LAKSHMI, ADUSUMILLI LAKSHMI, W/O.LATE NAGA
VARA PRASAD, AGED 53 YEARS R/O.TIRUVURU, NTR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. ADUSUMILLI PADMADIED, (DIED)
2. ADUSUMILLI NAGAVARA PRASAD, (DIED)
3. ADUSUMILLI GOPAL RAO, (DIED)
4. SITALA KRISHNAVENI, W/O.VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT
70 YEARS R/O.PAMARRU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KRISHNA
DISTRICT.
5. LIYAAKHATH ALIKKHAN, (DIED)
6. SAJJELAKHAN, S/O.LIYAKHATH ALI KHAN, AGED ABOUT 68
YEARS,
R/O.D.NO.12-4-1,
PEENA
MOHAMMAD
STREET,
TARAPET, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.
7. GUFRAN JUNEDKHAN, S/O.LIYAKHATH ALI KHAN, AGED ABOUT
48 YEARS, R/O.D.NO. 12-3-17, PEENA MOHAMMAD STREET, TARAPET, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.
8. TEHSEEN KHATOON, W/O.KHAZA MOINUDIN CHISTI, AGED
ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O.D.NO. 12-4-1, PEENA MOHAMMAD
STREET. TARAPET, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.
9. IMRANKHAN, S/O.LIYAKHATH ALI KHAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O.D.NO. 12-4-1, PEENA MOHAMMAD STREET, TARAPET, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.
...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 tobegs to present the above Revision Petition in this Hon'ble Court aggrieved by the Order dt 21-04-2025 in I.A.No.236 of 2025 in O.S.No.18 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Hon'ble XI Addl. District Judge, Gudivada Krishna District, for the following among other 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 Pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.18 of 2012 on the file of the court of the XI Addl. District Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District, pending disposal of the above Revision Petition in this Hon’ble Court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. MUDUNURI ANAND KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
The Court made the following:
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.
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 21.04.2025 passed in I.A. No.236 of 2025 in O.S. No.18 of 2012, on the file of the learned XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada, whereby the petition filed under Order XVIII, Rule 17 and Section 151 of CPC to recall P.W.1 to P.W.5 for further cross-examination and to reopen the suit was dismissed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The petitioner is defendant No.2 in O.S. No.18 of 2012. The suit was filed for cancellation of an unpossessory agreement of sale-cum-GPA, dated 10.12.2009, executed in favour of the defendant, who was the sole defendant in the suit originally. The sole defendant died and thereafter defendant Nos.2 to 5 were added as his legal representatives. The trial of the suit was completed and the suit was posted for hearing arguments. At that stage, the defendant filed an application for recall of P.W.1 to P.W.5 for further cross- examination and to reopen the suit. The trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioner admitted the case of the plaintiff in the cross-examination. Therefore, when the petitioner admitted the case of the plaintiff in the cross-examination, the necessity to recall the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.5 for further cross-examination does not arise at all.
4. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the said application, which was filed at the fag end of the trial. The suit is of the year 2010, which is an old suit. Now, after the trial is concluded and at the fag end of the suit, when it is ripe for disposal, the present petition is obviously filed to further protract the trial of the suit and to prevent its disposal. Therefore, this Court does not find any valid legal ground warranting interference in this Civil Revision Petition to entertain the same.
5. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the order of the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date: 19.12.2025 MH
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1420/2025
Date: 19.12.2025 MH