IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2142 OF 2024
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 the present C.R.P. by setting aside
the Order and Decree
passed I.A.No. 281 of 2024 in O.S.No. 262 of 2002 dated
08/08/2024 The
Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Chittoor.
Between:
B. Santhosh, S/o. B.S. Balakrishnan Naidu, Aged about
48 years, Occ.
Cultivation, R/o. Setteri Village, Thumbakuppam Post,
Bangarupalyam
Mandal, Chittoor District.
...PETITIONER/PETITIONER/?**^ DEFENDANT
AND
1. K. Chengamma Naidu, (Died)
2. K. Jayaprada, W/o. Late K.Chengama Naidu, Aged about
59 years, Occ
House Wife, R/o. D.No.2-621/1, Santhinagar Colony,
Phase I, Chittoor.
3. K.R. Padmavathy, D/o. Late K.Chengama Naidu, Aged
about 39 years,
R/o. D.No.2-621/1, Santhinagar Colony, Phase I, Chittoor.
4. K.R.V. Prasad, S/o. Late K. Chengama Naidu, Aged
about 35
years.
Rep by its Power of Attorney Holder and brother K.R.Sudhir,
S/o. Late
K. Chengama Naidu, Occ Employee, R/o. D.No.2-621/1,
Santhinagar
Colony, Phase I, Chittoor.
5. K.R.Sudhir, S/o. Late K.Chengama Naidu, Aged about
51 years, Occ
Cultivation, R/o. D.No.2-621/1, Santhinagar Colony,
Phase I, Chittoor.
6. Smt. K. Jagadamba, (Died).
7. B.S.Balakrishna Naidu, (Died)
8. Smt. L. Anasuya, W/o. Late L. Ethirajulu Naidu,
Aged about 72 years,
R/o. Mutharapalli Village, Thavanampalli Mandal, Chittoor
District.
9. B. Kasthuri, W/o. B. Balakrishna Naidu, Aged about
69 years, R/o.
Mutharapalli Village, Thavanampalli Mandal, Chittoor
District.
10. V.Naga Bushana, W/o. V.Chandrasekhar Naidu, Aged about
58
years, R/o. Flat No. 3, 3'^'^ floor. Cross Bhuvaneshwari
Nagar,
Bangalore.
11. . B.Ramani, W/o. B.R.Mohan Kumar, Aged about 50 years,
R/o.
D.No. 17-54, Marvel Infinity, 33th Cross, 1th Main
Banasankari II Stage,
Bangalore.
12. B.Sandip, S/o. B.S. Balakrishnan Naidu, Aged about
46 years,
Occ Business, R/o. Mutharapalle Village, Patnam Post,
Thavanampalle
Mandal, Chittoor District.
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS
No.
1 to 6 & 8
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
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 O.S.No.
262/2002 on the file of the
Si
m
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Chittoor,
pending disposal of the
above CRP.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI VV N NARASIMHAM
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.9 to 12 : SRI P SAI
SURYA TEJA
Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI A VENKATA DURGA
RAO
Counsel for the Respondent No.8 : SRI MANNAVA JAGAN
MOHAN RAO
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 ;
The Court made the following ORDER :
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2142 of 2024
Between:
# B SANTHOSH, S/0. B.S. BALAKRISHNAN NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCC CULTIVATION R/0. SETTER! VILLAGE, THUMBAKUPPAM POST,
BANGARUPALYAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
.... Petitioner
Versus
$ K CHENGAMMA NAIDU, DIED AND OTHERS.
Respondents
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED 31.12.2024.
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may
be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of order may be marked
to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair
Copy of the Order? Yes/No
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2142 of 2024
%DATE 31.12.2024
Between:
# B SANTHOSH, S/0. B.S. BALAKRISHNAN NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCC CULTIVATION, R/0. SETTERI VILLAGE, THUMBAKUPPAM POST,
BANGARUPALYAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
Petitioner
Versus
$ K CHENGAMMA NAIDU, DIED AND OTHERS.
....Respondents
! Counsel for the petitioner V V N NARASIMHAM
^ Counsel for the respondents:
1 .VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA
2.JAGAN MOHAN RAO MANNAVA
3.
4.P SAI SURYATEJA
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1995 0 Supreme(SC) 619
3
APHC010410432024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2142/2024
Between:
1.B SANTHOSH, S/0. B.S. BALAKRISHNAN NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 48
YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION R/0. SETTERI VILLAGE,
THUMBAKUPPAM POST, BANGARUPALYAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. K CHENGAMMA NAIDU, DIED
2. K JAYAPRADA, W/0. LATE K,CHENGAMA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 59
YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/0. D.NO.2-621/1, SANTHINAGAR
COLONY, PHASE I, CHITTOOR.
3. K R PADMAVATHY, , D/0. LATE K.CHENGAMA NAIDU, AGED
ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/0. D.NO.2-621/1, SANTHINAGAR COLONY,
PHASE I, CHITTOOR.
4. K R V PRASAD, , S/0. LATE K. CHENGAMA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS. REP BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND
BROTHER K.R.SUDHIR, S/0. LATE K. CHENGAMA NAIDU, OCC
EMPLOYEE, R/0. D.NO.2-621/1, SANTHINAGAR COLONY, PHASE
I, CHITTOOR.
5. K R SUDHIR, S/0. LATE K.CHENGAMA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 51
YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/0. D.NO.2-621/1, SANTHINAGAR
COLONY, PHASE I, CHITTOOR.
4
6. SMT K JAGADAMBA, (DIED).
7. B S BALAKRISHNA NAIDU, (DIED)
8. SMT L ANASUYA, W/0. LATE L. ETHIRAJULU NAIDU, AGED
ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/0. MUTHARAPALLI VILLAGE,
THAVANAMPALLI MANUAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
9. B KASTHURI, W/0. B. BALAKRISHNA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT
69
YEARS, R/0. MUTHARAPALLI VILLAGE
THAVANAMPALLI
MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 10.
10.V NAGA BUSHANA, W/0. V.CHANDRASEKHAR NAIDU, AGED
ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/0. FLAT NO. 3, 3RD FLOOR. CROSS
BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE.
11.B RAMANI, , W/0. B.R.MOHAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 50
YEARS,
R/0. D.NO. 17-54, MARVEL INFINITY, 33TH CROSS, 1TH
MAIN
BANASANKARI II STAGE, BANGALORE.
12.B SANDIP, , S/0. B.S. BALAKRISHNAN NAIDU, AGED ABOUT
46
YEARS, OCC BUSINESS R/0. MUTHARAPALLE VILLAGE,
PATNAM POST THAVANAMPALLE MANDAL, CHITTOOR
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 topleased to allow the present C.R.P. by setting
aside the Order and
Decree passed I.A.NO. 281 OF 2024 IN O.S.NO. 262 OF
2002 dated
08/08/2024 The Court of the Additional Civil Judge
(Senior Division) Chittoor
and to pass
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
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 stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.
262/2002 on the file of the
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Chittoor,
pending disposal of the
above CRP and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.VVN NARASIMHAM
5
■X
I-
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA
2.JAGAN MOHAN RAO MAN NAVA
3.
4.PSAI SURYATEJA
The Court made the following Order:
Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for the respondent Nos.9 to 12.
2. This revision is filed against the order passed in I.A.No.281 of 2024 in
O.S.No.262 of 2002 on the file of Additional Civil
Judge (Senior Division),
Chittoor, dated 08.08.2024 in partly allowing the petition
permitting the
petitioner/?'^ defendant to participate in the suit
proceedings at the stage of
arguments only.
The petitioner is the T"' defendant in the suit and
3. the respondent Nos.9
to 12 are the defendant Nos.4, 5, 6 and 8 in the suit.
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner/?'^' defendant is only aggrieved of the
order passed by the Court
below only to the extent of permitting the petitioner to participate in the suit
proceedings at the stage of arguments only. Having permitted to participate in
th
the suit proceedings, the trial Court ought to have allowed the petitioner/?
defendant to avail all the consequences instead of limiting the role of
petitioner/?"^ defendant
participation from the arguments stage only. When the
was allowed to file the additional written statement in the suit proceedings, the
6
said defendant must be in a position to participate
in the suit proceedings from
the stage of inception of the additional written statement.
When the defendant
No.8 was allowed to submit his written statement and
when there
was no
restriction to participate from the stage of arguments
only, inserting such
restriction in the order dated 08.08.2024 for this petitioner/?'^ defendant is
discriminatory as the petitioner would be deprived
of seeking framing of
additional issues if any and participation in the trial
to cross examine the
witnesses in terms of the additional averments made
in the written statement.
Since the plaint was amended, as the defendant Nos.1
and 2 died and their
legal representatives were brought on record permitting
to file additional
written statement, it is just and necessary to allow
the subsequent defendants
who came on record to participate in the trial, if
necessary, by reopening the
same, but no useful purpose would be served if they
are permitted to
participate at the stage of arguments only without
subjecting them for
examination and cross examination in the course of
trial.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for
the above said
respondents/defendants submits that the 2'"'' defendant
who is the father of
the petitioner/?"' defendant already filed written
statement on 0?.06.2003 itself
and the petitioner has come on record as one of the
legal representatives of
the deceased 2^" defendant. Even if he is allowed to
file additional written
statement he need not be permitted to seek for reopening
of the trial and
restricting him to participate at the stage of arguments
only, no prejudice
would be caused as the necessary evidence was already
let in for the
7
defendants. Merely because there are inter se disputes amongst the
defendants, that cannot be a ground for reopening of the trial at the instance
of one of the legal representatives of the deceased defendant who initially
contested the suit by filing the written statement. Earlier the plaintiff filed
C.R.P.No.2324 of 2014 against the order of recalling of DW.1 for further cross
examination which was dismissed by this Hon’ble Court on 08.09.2023. When
the 2"^^ respondent died, defendant Nos.6 to 8 are
brought on record as the
legal representatives of the 2^'^ defendant. In this case, the 3’’^ defendant also
filed written statement on 04.04.2024.
He refers to the Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. at this stage which reads as
under:
Procedure in case of death of one of several defendants or of sole
defendant.
(1) Where one of two or more defendants dies and the right to sue does not
survive against the surviving defendant or defendants alone, or a sole
defendant or sole surviving defendant dies and the right to sue survives, the
Court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal
representative of the deceased defendant to be made a party and shall
proceed with the suit.
(2) Any person so made a party may make any defence appropriate to his
character as legal representative of the deceased defendant.
He also refers to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Vidyawati v. Man Mohan and others^ in Special Leave
Petition (Civil)
No.9356 of 1995 dated 01.05.1995 for the said provision of Order 22 Rule 4(2)
C.P.C., wherein it is observed in para Nos.3 & 6 as under:
195,5 0 SupremeISC) 619
T
8
(3) Whether the petitioner has independent right, title
and interest dehors the
claim of the 1®' defendant is a matter to be gone into
at a later proceedings. It
is true that when the petitioner was impleaded as a
party defendant, all right
under Order 22 Rule 4(2) and defences available to
the deceased defendant
become available to her. In addition, if the petitioner
had any independent
right, title or interest in the property then she had
to get herself impleaded in
the suit a party defendant in which she could set up
her own independent
right, title and interest to resist the claim made
by the plaintiff or challenge the
decree that may be passed in the suit.
(6) It is open to the petitioner to implead herself
in her independent capacity
under Order 1 Rule 10 or retain the right to file independent
suit asserting her
own right. We do not find any error of jurisdiction
or material irregularity
committed in the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court
below warranting our
interference. The S.L.P. is accordingly dismissed.
He further submits that as per the plaint of the said
suit, the cause of
action for filing the suit arose on 25.12.2000, the
date of execution of the Will
by Balia Raghava Naidu in favour of the 1®’ defendant,
on 31.01.2001, the
date on which the said Balia Raghava Naidu died and
on several dates and in
the recent past when the defendants claim that they
are having right in the
plaint schedule properties before both the plaintiffs
and defendants and the
relief sought in the said suit against the defendants
is that to declare that the
plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule
properties and for
grant of consequential relief of injunction in favour
of the plaintiffs with respect
to the plaint schedule properties in which originally the 2"^ defendant in his
lifetime filed the written statement stating that there
are no merits in the suit
and the unregistered Will dated 25.12.2000 is a forged
and fabricated
document and as such the document cannot carry any
evidentiary value to
ft’
9
prove the claim of the petitioners against the defendants in respect of the
plaint schedule properties.
6. In view of the above said facts and circumstances and
upon
consideration of the rival submissions made, it is to be seen that the above
I.A.No.281 of 2024 in O.S.No.262 of 2002 on the file of Additional Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Chittoor was filed by the petitioner/?*^
defendant stating that
the filing of written statement by him is very much necessary in the interest of
justice as the plaintiffs filed the suit basing upon the false and fabricated
documents as heavy stakes are involved in the above said suit, the
petitioner/?’*^ defendant may be permitted to file
the additional written
statement apart from giving necessary reason for not filing the same on the
In the written statement of the ?"^ defendant/petitioner
earlier occasion.
nd
herein, it was averred that he is adopting the written statement filed by the 2
defendant in respect of all the material facts mentioned in para Nos.6 to 10 of
the plaint.
In view of the amended plaint, this defendant is filing additional written
St
statement stating that during the pendency of the above said suit, the 1
defendant died intestate and she showed the entire property in favour of the
2"'* defendant.
Entire plaintiff’s properties including the plaint schedule
of the 2^^ defendant.
properties are in joint possession of the family members
nd
The other legal heirs of the 2 defendant are creating fabricated, collusive
documents to defeat the interest of this ?”’ defendant
which cannot be looked
into as they are not binding upon this defendant. He also submitted that he
10
filed the suit against the defendant Nos.2,6 & 8 for
partition of the entire joint
family properties including the plaint schedule properties
in O.S.No.8 of 2023
on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Chittoor which is pending
for disposal. The primary contention of this defendant/petitione
r is that the
plaintiff in collusion with the other defendants is
trying to lay foundation with
the false statements. It is to be seen that while adopting
the written statement
of the deceased 2"^ defendant certain additional averments
were made in the
written statement of the 7’^ defendant by way of defense
appropriate to his
character as legal representative of the deceased defendant.
As per the said provision when the legal representatives
of the
deceased defendant makes an application, the Court
can make him a party to
proceed with the suit and any person who is made as
a party can make his
defense appropriate to his character as legal representative
of the deceased
defendant. Hence, the above said provision enables
the legal representative
to come on record along with the written statement
by putting forth his defense
for participation in the suit proceedings.
7. Even as per the above said decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court when
the petitioner was impleaded as a party-defendant,
all right under Order 22
Rule 4(2) CPC and the defences available to the deceased
defendant become
available to him.
It is not the case of the petitioner herein that he
is
impleading in the suit as a party defendant to set
up his own independent
right, title and interest to resist the claim of the
plaintiff dehors the defense
already taken by the deceased 2""^ defendant in his
written statement. That
11
(‘In
tv.
apart Order 22 Rule 4 CPC enables the legal representative to proceed with
trial Court against the
the suit and as such imposing the restriction by the
only vide order dated
petitioner to participate at the stage of arguments
08.08.2024 is unreasonable, unjust and contrary to law. All the more, the
order passed by the trial
contesting respondents herein did not challenge the
Court dated 08.08.2024 allowing the petitioner to file the additional written
statement as the 7*^ defendant in the suit.
shall cooperate with
Since the suit is of the year 2002, both the parties
expeditiously as possible,
the trial Court for early disposal of the same, as
preferably within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of this
order.
For the foregoing reasons, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed
8.
removing the restriction on the petitioner “to participate in the suit proceedings
at the stage of arguments only”. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
SDI- M.SRINIVAS
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
One Fair Copy to the HON’BLE SRI. JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
(for his Lordship’s kind perusal)
To,
1. The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Chittoor.
2. One CC to SRI. VV N NARASIMHAM Advocate [OPUC]
3. One CC to SRI.P. SAI SURYA TEJA, Advocate [OPUC]
4. One CC to SRI.A. VENKATA DURGA RAO. Advocate [OPUC]
5. One CC to SRI. MANNAVA JAGAN MOHAN RAO, Advocate
[OPUC]
6. 9 L.R. Copies.
7. The Under Secretary, Union of India. Ministry of
Law, Justice and
Company Affairs, New Delhi
8. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates’
Association
Library, High Court Buildings, Amaravarthi.
9. THREE CD COPIES
Chp
TAC
▼
HIGH COURT
DATED:31/12/2024
ORDER
CRP.No.2142 of 2024
i 17 JAN MS S
^ . Current Section . ^
ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION