Lanke Satyavathi Vs Vallabhaneni Sambasiva Rao

¶1

1

¶2

VS,J CRP.No.1500 of 2024

¶3

APHC010294172024

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

[3333]

¶7

THURSDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶10

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1500/2024

¶11

Between:

¶12

LANKE SATYAVATHI, W/O. NAGESWARA RAO AGE 53 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE R/O. YELDIKOTHAPALEM VILLAGE CHANDRALAPADU MANDAL KRISHNA DISTRICT

¶13

...PETITIONER

¶14

AND

¶15

VALLABHANENI SAMBASIVA RAO, S/O. ANKAMMA AGED 51 YEARS, R/O.3RD WARD, DHARANIKOTA AMARAVATHI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶16

NADAKUDURU BULLAIAH, S/O. LATE GALIEEBU AGED 66 YEARS, R/O.KONURU VILLAGE, ATCHEMPET MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶17

NADAKUDURI VENKATARAJU, S/O. LATE SUBBA RAO AGE 35 YEARS, R/O.KONURU VILLAGE, ATCHEMPET MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶18

NADAKUDURU RUPAMMA, W/O. LATE NAGESWARA RAO AGE 45 YEARS, R/O.KONURU VILLAGE, ATCHEMPET MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶19

NADAKUDURU VEERA BABU, S/O. LATE NAGESWARA RAO AGE 25 YEARS, R/O.KONURU VILLAGE, ATCHEMPET MANDAL,

¶20

2

¶21

VS,J CRP.No.1500 of 2024

¶22

GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶23

NADAKUDURU YEDUKONDALU, S/O. LATE SATYANARAYANA AGE 23 YEARS, R/O.KONURU VILLAGE, ATCHEMPET MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶24

NADAKUDURU VENKATARAJU, S/O. LATE SATYANARAYANA AGE 45 YEARS, R/O.KONURU VILLAGE, ATCHEMPET MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶25

NADAKUDURU RAGHUPATHI RAJU, S/O. LATE SATYANARAYANA AGE 40 YEARS, R/O.KONURU VILLAGE, ATCHEMPET MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶26

NADAKUDURU HYMAVATHI, W/O. LATE EDUKONDALU AGE 57 YEARS R/O.KONURU VILLAGE, ATCHEMPET MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶27

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶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 tomay be pleased to set aside the Order dated 02.05.2024 passed in I.A.No 68 of 2024 in O.S. No. 473 of 2016 in On the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sattenapalli and allow the I.A.No 68 of 2024 in O.S. No. 473 of 2016 in On the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sattenapalli, Krishna District in the interest of justice and pass such

¶29

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶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 grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 473 of 2016 On the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sattenapalli pending disposal of the above civil revision petition in the interest of justice and a pass such

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶32

1.KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU

¶33

3

¶34

VS,J CRP.No.1500 of 2024

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶36

1.DODDALA YATHINDRA DEV

¶37

The Court made the following:

¶38

4

¶39

VS,J CRP.No.1500 of 2024

¶40

ORDER:

¶41

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, dated 02.05.2024 in I.A.No.68 of 2024 in O.S.No.473 of 2016, whereby, the Court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) to reopen the plaintiff’s side evidence which was closed on 12.09.2022.

¶42

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶43

(a) The petitioner/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit against the respondents/defendants for declaration of her title over the suit schedule property and for consequential relief of recovery of possession; for mandatory injunction directing the 1^st defendant to remove the unauthorized construction made in the suit schedule property and for recovery of an amount of Rs.8,400/- for unauthorized use and occupation.

¶44

(b) While the suit is posted for arguments, the petitioner filed an application before the Court below under Section 151 of CPC stating that the suit schedule property originally belongs to her husband who acquired the same from his father and that the same was gifted to her by way of a gift deed (Ex.A1); that as her husband was affected with paralysis subsequent to filing of the suit, she could not examine him at the relevant point of time. The

¶45

5

¶46

VS,J CRP.No.1500 of 2024

¶47

petitioner further stated that after medication, petitioner’s husband is now in good health and is able to give evidence. As such, the petitioner requested the Court below to permit her to reopen her evidence to examine her husband as P.W.4.

¶48

(c) The Court below, having observed that the petitioner failed to file any documentary evidence to prove that her husband suffered from paralysis and that the case of the petitioner cannot be proved by examining a third party to the suit, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 02.05.2024. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has putforth suitable reasons for reopening the petitioner’s side evidence, the Court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, this revision petition is filed.

¶49

Heard Mr. Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Yathindra Dev, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶50

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the petitioner was able to put-forth sufficient cause for not examining her husband at an earlier stage as he suffered from paralysis, the Court below, without considering the said fact, has dismissed the application filed for reopening the evidence. While relying upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sugandhi (dead) and another Vs. P.

6

VS,J

CRP.No.1500 of 2024

Rajkumar,¹ , learned counsel contended that the procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the Court while doing substantial justice and that if the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, Courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. Hence, requested to allow the civil revision petition by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Court below.

¶55

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposed the contentions raised by the petitioner and strenuously contended that the petitioner failed to produce any medical document proving that her husband suffered from paralysis. In the absence of any such proof, the petitioner’s evidence cannot be reopened. Further, relying upon a judgment of the erstwhile High Court for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Smt. Gollu Satyavathi and ors., Vs. Kilaparthi Apparao and ors.,² learned counsel for the respondent requested this Court to dismiss the civil revision petition.

¶56

A perusal of the entire material available on record would go to show that the suit is filed by the petitioner for declaration of title of the suit schedule property and for other consequential reliefs. The petitioner herein was

¶57

1 (2020) 10 SCC 706

¶58

2 (2018) 1 ALT 503

¶59

7

¶60

VS,J CRP.No.1500 of 2024

¶61

examined as P.W.1 on 25.02.2020 and was cross examined on 23.03.2021 by the respondents. Thereafter, the evidence of both the parties was recorded and was closed on 31.10.2023. While the matter was posted for arguments, the petitioner filed I.A.No.68 of 2024 in O.S.No.473 of 2016 requesting the Court below to reopen the evidence of the petitioner as her husband, who was suffering from paralysis, is in good health and is able to give evidence on her behalf. It appears from the record that the petitioner, except alleging that subsequent to filing of the suit her husband got paralyzed, has not put forth any document in support of her contention. It is true that procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the Court while doing substantial justice and that the Court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. But, in the case on hand, the petitioner has not filed any document to substantiate her case.

¶62

It is also an admitted fact that a party, at the commencement of trial, shall be ready with all the witnesses. In case a request is made by a party for reopening the evidence after closure of the evidence, particularly when the matter is posted for arguments, the Court, unless and until finds strong reasons, shall not order for reopening evidence merely on the request made by such party. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner, having failed to submit enough documentary evidence in support of her case that her husband

¶63

8

¶64

VS,J CRP.No.1500 of 2024

¶65

suffered from paralysis, cannot now contend that the trial Court has not looked into the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶66

In view of my foregoing discussion, this Court finds no wrong committed by the trial Court in passing the impugned order dated 02.05.2024 in I.A.No.68 of 2024 in O.S.No.473 of 2016. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶67

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶68

___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶69

Date:13.11.2025

¶70

Gss

Lanke Satyavathi v. Vallabhaneni Sambasiva Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lanke Satyavathi v. Vallabhaneni Sambasiva Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gundapati Hanumantha Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Baby Sarojini Vs the State of Ap

M/S.Sew Infrastructure Limted Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Pasupuleti Jayadev, Vs a. Poongodi

K Prasad Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.Duggineni Nagavardhanamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh