Dismissed

Bokka Krishna Murthy, v. Bokka Srinivasa Rao

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Sept 2024CRP/6626/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court via civil revision petition dismissed the petitioner's challenge to an order rejecting an application to include additional property in the plaint schedule. The court held the petitioner was precluded under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC and that the suit was filed to harass the plaintiff.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions closed.

Bokka Krishna Murthy, Vs Bokka Srinivasa Rao — Partition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 6626 OF 2018

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 27-09-2018 in I.A.No. 499/2018 in O.S.No.62/2013 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Bokka Krishna Murthy, S/o Late Nageswara Rao, Hindu, Aged about 57 years. Cultivation, R/o Bandarkota, Machilipatnam,^{KrishnaDistrict.}

¶9

...PETITIONER/1®^ DEPENDENT

¶10

AND

¶11

Bokka Srinivasa Rao, S/o Late Nageswara Rao, Hindu, Aged about 51 years. Cultivation, R/o 32/126, Bandarkota, Machilipatnam,^Krishna District.

¶12

...PLAINTIFF

¶13

Batchula Nancharamma, W/o Bhimaraju, Hindu, Aged about 67 years House wife, R/o Bandarkota, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. (2nd Defendant)

¶14

Manne Anasuryamma, W/o Krishna Murthy, Hindu, Aged^about69 years, House Wife, R/o Bandarkota, Machilipatnam, Krishna^District. (3rd Defendant)

¶15

/ t K ■ V.

¶16

Manne Sitamma, W/o M. Veerachandra Rao, Hindu, Aged^about48 • years. House Wife, R/o Bandarkota, Machilipatnam,^{KrishnaDistrict.} (4th Defendant)

¶17

Devanaboina Samrajyam, W/o Naga Swamy, Hindu, Aged^about36 years. House Wife, Rio Bandarkota, Machilipatnam, Krishna^District. (5th Defendant)

¶18

Veerla Sri Lakshmi, W/o Siva Koti, Hindu, Aged about 5 years. House Wife, R/o Bandakota , Machilipatnam, Krishna District. (6th Defendant)

¶19

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings^ofsuitinOS NO.62/2013 on the file of the court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna district pending disposal of main revision petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI B V ANJANEYULU

¶24

The Court made the following ORDER -:

¶25

APHC010839832018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶26

[3460]

¶27

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶28

MONDAY .THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶31

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 6626/2018

¶32

Between:

¶33

Bokka Krishna Murthy,

¶34

...PETITIONER

¶35

AND

¶36

Bokka Srinivasa Rao and Others

¶37

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶39

NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶41

1.B VANJANEYULU

¶42

The Court made the following:

¶43

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶44

C.R.P.No.6626 of 2018

¶45

ORDER:

¶46

This revision is filed questioning the order dated 27.09.2018 in I.A.No.499 of 2018 in O.S.No.62 of 2013 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2. Petitioner is defendant No.1. Suit was filed for partition. Petitioner filed I.A.No.499 of 2018 seeking amendment^ofthe plaint schedule property by including item No.5 into‘the plaint schedule. This application was opposed by the plaintiff. The trial Court after hearing the respective counsel dismissed^the application. Hence, the present revision petition is^filed.

¶47

Heard Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.V.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel^forthe respondents.

¶48

The suit was filed for partition of plaint schedule properties and defendant No.1 had filed I.A.No.333 of 2016 seeking to include the very same schedule property as 5*^ item of the plaint schedule. The said application was dismissed on 02.05.2018 for default.

¶49

¶50

Again, the present application was filed by the petitioner for the very same relief. No explanation is offered by the petitioner as to how he could file a second application^whenthe first application for the very same relief was dismissed^fornon prosecution. The Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C., states that a plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect^ofthe same cause of action which was dismissed under Rule 8 thereof. As the cause of action remains constant, the petitioner is precluded from filing a fresh application/fresh^suitinviewof Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C.

¶51

Apart from that, the property that was sought to be included in the plaint schedule is a property covered^undera registered sale deed dated 06.07.1976 and the same stands in the name of father of the respondent. The inclusion^ofthesaid property ■ appears only to harass the plaintiff for seeking partition of suit schedule property.

¶52

This Court does not find any merit in the revision^andthe same is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the I miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

SDI- B CHITTI JOSEPH

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Machilipatnam,^Krishna District, (with records if any)

¶59

One CC to Sri. Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, Advocate [OPUC]

¶60

¶61

3. One CC to Sri. B V Anjaneyulu, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:02/09/2024

ORDER

CRP.No.6626 of 2018

o
o
5 19 nCT 202^
4’
★

¶69

DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS

Bokka Krishna Murthy, v. Bokka Srinivasa Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bokka Krishna Murthy, v. Bokka Srinivasa Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Narasimhulu Naidu, Chittoor Dist Vs T.C. Gangama Naidu, Chittoor Dist

Botta Appa Rao Vs Bera Govindu

V.v.Ramana Vs Shaik Maqbool

Lalitha Kumar and Another Vs P.Lakshmi Devi and 5 Others

Salla Nagabhushanam Vs Kumari Pushpalatha

Lalitha Kumar Vs P.Lakshmi Devi