Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/3104/2025 of BHAGAVATHULA LAKSHMI VENKATA PHANI SAI SUKESH Vs BHAGAVATHULA KAMESWARAMMA on 20 November 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3163] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3104/2025 Between: 1. BHAGAVATHULA LAKSHMI VENKATA PHANI
APHC010604982025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3104/2025
Between:
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.
1. BHAGAVATHULA LAKSHMI VENKATA PHANI SAI SUKESH, S/O. BHAGAVATHULA LAKSHMI VENKATA SIVA SUBRAHMANYAM, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO. 23-34/7, MANNEPALLIVAH STREET,
LAKSHMI NAGAR, SATYANARAYANAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA.
2. BHAGAVATHULA LAKSHMI VENKATA SRAVANI, D/O. BHAGAVATHULA LAKSHMI VENKATA SIVA SUBRAHMANYAM, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS. RESIDING AT D.NO. 23-34/7, MANNEPALLIVAH STREET,
LAKSHMI NAGAR, SATYANARAYANAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA.
...PETITIONER(S) AND
1. BHAGAVATHULA KAMESWARAMMA, (DIED)1.
2. BHAGAVATHULA LAKSHMI VENKATA SIVA SUBRAHMANYAM, S/O. SEETARAMA SASTRY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO. 23-34/7, MANNEPALLIVAH STREET, LAKSHMI NAGAR, SATYANARAYANAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA.
3. PASUPULETI KANAKADURGA, W/O. SRINIVASA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 27-10-2/7, K.L. RAO COLONY, VIJAYAWADA.
4. GADDAM RADHIKA, W/O. SRINIVASA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 24-28/6-8A, EUPUGANTI LAKSHMANA RAO
STREET, DURGAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA.
...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 the Petitioners beg to present this Civil Revision Petition against the Decree and order dated 23-09-2025 passed in I.A. No. 734 of 2024 in O.S. No. 184 of 2018 on the file of Court of XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, and set forth the following 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 of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 184 of 2018 on the file of the XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition, and pass s Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. T V P SAI VIHARI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. The Court made the following order:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. As this Civil Revision Petition is being disposed of by remanding the matter to the trial Court to hear the application afresh including on the aspect of payment of appropriate court fee, and pass orders according to law, notice to respondents is dispensed with.
3. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.184 of 2018 on the file of the learned XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. They have filed the suit for declaration of title, cancellation of sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 and for permanent injunction against the defendant Nos.1 and 2 not to alienate the plaint schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs have filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking permission to amend prayer in the suit seeking recovery of possession of the suit property.
4. The said petition came to be dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioners did not pay appropriate court fee. According to the trial Court, the petitioners have paid the court fee under 24(a) of the A.P Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act (for short ‘the Act’) and the appropriate provision for payment of court fee, as per the trial Court, is under Section 24 (d) of the Act.
5. The main grievance of the revision petitioners in this revision petition is that the trial Court did not hear them on the aspect relating to payment of court fee, whether the court fee is to be paid as per section 24(a) or 24(d) of the Act and without hearing them on that aspect, the application was dismissed.
6. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the matter has to be remanded to the trial Court to hear the application afresh on the aspect of payment of court fee and pass appropriate orders accordingly.
7. Therefore, the impugned order dated 23.09.2025 passed in I.A.No.734 of 2024 in O.S.No.184 of 2018 on the file of the learned XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for hearing the petitioners under order VI Rule 17 CPC afresh, including on the aspect relating to the payment of court fee, by providing an opportunity to the plaintiffs to make their submissions on the said aspect, and then dispose of the same accordingly.
8. Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in this case shall stand closed.
________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date: 21.11.2025 MP
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3104 of 2025
Date:21.11.2025
MP