Boya Somulamma, Vs Telugu Kadupulanna

Boya Somulamma, W/o. Late Narasimhulu, aged about 76 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o, Polakal Village, C- Belagal Mandal, Kurnool District 2. Boya Ramanjaneyuiu, S/o. Late. Narasimhulu, aged about 31 years Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Polakal Village, C. Belagal Mandal, Kurnool District

¶10

...Petitioners/Defendants

¶11

AND

¶12

Telugu Kadupulanna, S/o. Telugu Yellappa, aged about 65 years. Agnculture, R/o. Polakal Village, C. Belagal Mandal,^{KurnoolDistrict.} ...Respondent/Plaintiff Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances^ st^ed in the grounds filed herein, the^{HighCourtmaybe} pleased to aliowithe /present Civil Revision Petition^andsetaside the Order dated 22. in I.A. No. 186 of 2025 in p.S. No. 499 of 2016 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge,^Kurnoolinthe interest of justice and consequently direct the Honlble Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool to send the EX. B-11 document / instrument to the District Registrar

¶13

...Respondent/Plaintiff

¶14

for necessary corrections, rectifying the same and reissuing the corrected endorsement certificate.

¶15

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶16

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 the further proceedings In OS No. 499 of 2016 on the file of the Judge, Principal Civil Judge,( Senior Division), Kurnool pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VARUN BYREDDY

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent: ---

APHC010313442025

CRP NO. 1450 OF 2025

Between:

Boya Somulamma, W/o. Late Narasimhulu, aged about 76 years. Occ- Agriculture, R/o. Polakal Village, C. Belagal Mandal, Kurnool District 2. Boya Ramanjaneyulu, S/o7 Later Narasimhulu, agecT^about 31 years Occ- Agriculture, R/o. Polakal Village, C. Belagal Mandal, Kurnool District

¶23

...Petitioners/ Defendants

¶24

AND ^ ~ ^

¶25

Telugu Kadupulanna, S/o. Telugu Yellappa, aged about 6^yearsr^^ Agriculture R/o. Polakal Village, C. Belagal Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶26

...Responden/Plaintiff

¶27

inm

¶28

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 Civil Revision Petition and set aside the Order dated 22.04.2025 passed in I.A. No. 185 of 2025 in O.S. No. 499 of 2016 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge,^Kurnoolinthe interest of justice and consequently reopen the case for the sending^EX.B-11 document / instrument to the District Registrar for necessary corrections, rectifying the same and reissuing corrected endorsement certificate.

¶29

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶30

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 may be pleased to stay all the further proceedings^inOSNo.499of 2016 on the file of the Judge, Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool pending disposal of the above CRP.

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VARUN BYREDDY

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent: —

¶33

The Court made the following Common order:

¶34

^7'

¶35

APHC010270452025

¶36

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶37

AT AMARAVATI

¶38

[3311]

¶39

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶40

Thursday, the Twenty Sixth day of June

¶41

Two Thousand and Twenty Five

¶42

Present

¶43

The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi

¶44

Civil Revision Petition Nos: 1449 and 1450 of 2025

¶45

Between:

¶46

Boya Somulamma and others

...Petitioners

and

Telugu Kadupulanna

...Respondent

Counsel for the petitionerds

¶52

I.Varun Byreddy

¶53

The Court made the following:

¶54

2 C.R.P.Nos.1449 & 1450 of 2025

¶55

COMMON ORDER:

¶56

The C.R.P.No.1449 of 2025 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 22.04.2025^{dismissingthe} petition in I.A.No.186 of 2025 in O.S.No.499 of 2016^{onthefileofthe} Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, filed^{bythedefendants} under Section 151 C.P.C. to send Ex.BII document to the District Registrar, Kurnool for necessary corrections, rectifying^thesameandre issue the corrected endorsement certificate.

¶57

The C.R.P.No.1450 of 2025 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 22.04.2025^{dismissingthe} petition in I.A.No.185 of 2025 in O.S.No.499 of 2016^{onthefileofthe} Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, filed^{bythedefendants} under Section 151 C.P.C. to reopen the suit on behalf^{ofthedefendants} for sending Ex.BII document to the District Registrar, Kurnool for necessary corrections, rectifying the same and re-issue^thecorrected endorsement certificate. 3. The respondent / plaintiff filed suit for permanent^{injunction.The} defendants got Ex.BII document impounded vide No.El/2551/2023, dated 22.01.2024 issued by the District Registrar,^{Kurnool.Accordingto} the defendants, a typographical mistake occurred in^{theendorsement} by recording another suit number i.e., O.S.No.149 of^{2014insteadof} O.S.No.499 of 2016 and similarly another mistake of noting sale agreement document date as 12.07.1993 instead of 18.03.1957.^The defendants further contended that the witness from the District Registrar’s Office was examined as D.W.6 has also deposed^aboutthe mistake. Under these circumstances, the defendants requested the Court to send Ex.BII to the District Registrar, Kurnool^forthe purpose

¶58

3

¶59

C.R.P.Nos.1449 & 1450 of 2025

¶60

of getting the necessary corrections made and re-issue corrected endorsement certificate after rectifying the mistake. 4. However, the petition was opposed by the respondent / plaintiff stating that the Court cannot give direction to rectify^{therecordofthe} District Registrar. 5. The trial Court concurred with the objection and held^that it is the District Registrar who has to rectify the mistake and^{acivilCourtcannot} give a direction to the District Registrar to carry^{outthecorrectionsetc.} Accordingly, the I.A.No.186 of 2025 was dismissed and recording the dismissal of the same, I.A.No.185 of 2025 was also dismissed. 6. Aggrieved by the orders, the defendants preferred these^revision petitions. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that^theCourt was not requested to give direction to the District Registrar to get the corrections made etc., but, the defendants requested only to send the document for the purpose of getting the necessary corrections^made etc., by the District Registrar himself. Therefore,^{hecontendedthatthe} trial Court dismissed the petition under a misassumption of the relief sought.

¶61

A perusal of the order in I.A.No.186 of 2025 shows that there is no observation of the trial Court that there is no such error crept in the endorsement. It is only, on the ground that a Court cannot give such direction to the District Registrar, the petition was dismissed. As such, the error in the order is apparent on record and the same^isliabletobe set aside by remanding the matter to the trial Court to dispose of the petition afresh treating the relief sought by the petitioners^asonefor

¶62

4

¶63

C.R.P.Nos.1449 & 1450 of 2025

¶64

sending the document and not for giving any direction^tothe District Registrar. Since the petition in I.A.No.186 of 2025^{requirefreshhearing,} I.A.No.185 of 2025 is also liable to be set aside.

¶65

In the result, the civil revision petitions are disposed of by setting aside the impugned orders dated 22.04.2025 in I.A.No.186^of2025and I.A.No. 185 of 2025. The trial Court is directed to^{rehearthematters} afresh and pass appropriate orders.

¶66

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶67

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand^vacated.

¶68

Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶69

//TRUE COPY//

¶70

\

¶71

SECTION OFFICER