Busi Roja Mani Alias Yedukondalu Venkata Ramana Vs Gollamandula Santha Kumari

¶1

APHC010087362025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(■ FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY L \ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 505 OF 2025

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Civil Revision Petition having been aggrieved by the Order dated 11.3.2024 passed in I.A.No.767of 2023 in O.S.No.190 of 2020 on the file of Honourable I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasapuram.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Busi Roja Mani Alias Yedukondalu Venkata Ramana, W/o late Busi Vandanam, aged 54 years, C/o Lachanna, Advocate, Himaliwada Nr. Water Tank, Church of South India Diocese of Medak, CSI Wesley Church, Mandcheriala Pastorate, Mancherial District, Telangana.

¶10

Gande vijaya } 1 W/o Nitin Kumar, aged 32 years. Resident of Laxminagaram, Road No.4, Mancherial District, Telangana.

¶11

Busi manikya Kumari D/o late Busi Vandanam, Aged 29 years, C/o

¶12

Lachanna, Advocate, Himaliwada, Nr. Water Tank,. Church of South India Diocese of Medak, CSI Wesley Church, Mandcheriala Pastorate, Mancherial District, Telangana and presently residing at Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.

¶13

Busi Raju @ Kamal Raju,, S/o late Busi Vandanam Aged 27 years.

¶14

C/o Lachanna, Advocate, Himaliwada Nr. Water Tank, Church of

¶15

South India Diocese of Medak, CSI Wesley Church, Mandcheriala

¶16

f

¶17

Pastorate, Mancherial District, Telangana and presently working at Komarambheem District.

¶18

...PETITIONER/S

¶19

AND

¶20

Gollamandula Santha Kumari, W/o Chandra Sekhar Aged 54 years, Resident of Kothapalem Serepalem Mogalthur Mandal, West Godavari District.

¶21

...RESPONDENT

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶23

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 the further proceedings in O.S.No.l90 of 2020 by the Honourable I Additional Junior civil Judge-cum- Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1 Class, Narasapuram.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI GOWRI SANKAR CHEEKATLA

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI SARASCHANDRA BABU JAKKAMSETTY

¶26

The Court made the following ORDER :

[3239]

' /

APHC010087362025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶31

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶32

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶33

PRESENT

¶34

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY

¶35

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 505/2025

¶36

Between:

¶37

1.BUSI ROJA MANI ALIAS YEDUKONDALU VENKATA RAMANA,^W/0 LATE BUSI VANDANAM, AGED 54 YEARS, C/0 LACHANNA, ADVOCATE, HIMALIWADA, NR. WATER TANK, CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA DIOCESE OF MEDAK, CSI WESLEY CHURCH, MANDCHERIALA PASTORATE, MANCHERIAL DISTRICT, TELANGANA.

¶38

2.GANDE VIJAYA,, W/0 NITIN KUMAR, AGED 32 YEARS. RESIDENT OF LAXMINAGARAM, ROAD N0.4 MANCHERIAL DISTRICT, TELANGANA.

¶39

3.BUSI MANIKYA KUMARI, , D/0 LATE BUSI VANDANAM, AGED²⁹ YEARS, C/0 LACHANNA, ADVOCATE, HIMALIWADA, NR. WATER TANK, CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA DIOCESE OF MEDAK, CSI WESLEY CHURCH, MANDCHERIALA PASTORATE, MANCHERIAL DISTRICT, TELANGANA AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT DILSUKHNAGAR, HYDERABAD.

¶40

BUSI RAJU @ KAMAL RAJU„ S/0 LATE BUSI VANDANAM,^AGED27 YEARS, C/O LACHANNA, ADVOCATE, HIMALIWADA, NR. WATER TANK, CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA DIOCESE OF MEDAK, CSI WESLEY CHURCH, MANDCHERIALA PASTORATE, MANCHERIAL DISTRICT, TELANGANA AND PRESENTLY WORKING AT KOMARAMBHEEM DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

2

I.GOLLAMANDULA SANTHA KUMARI, W/o Chandra Sekhar, Aged⁵⁴ years, Resident of Kothapalem Serepalem, Mogalthur Mandal,^West Godavari District.

¶45

...RESPONDENT

¶46

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,^{prayingthatinthe} circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the^{HighCourtmaybe} pleased to begs to present this Memorandum of Civil^{RevisionPetitionhaving} been aggrieved by the Order dated 11.3.2024 passedⁱⁿ I.A.No.767 of 2023 in O.S.No.190 of 2020, on the file of Honourable I^{AdditionalJuniorcivil} Judge, Narasapuram

¶47

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶48

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybepleased} Pleased to stay all the further proceedings in O.S.No.190^of2020 by the Honourable I Additional Junior civil Judge-cum- Additional^{JudicialMagistrate} of 1 Class, Narasapuram and pass

¶49

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶50

1.GOWRI SANKAR CHEEKATLA

¶51

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶52

1.SARASCHANDRA BABU JAKKAMSETTY

¶53

3

¶54

f’LA

¶55

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶56

The defendants in O.S.No. 190/2020 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasapuram, filed the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning^theorderdt. 11.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.767/2023.

¶57

The respondent herein filed the above suit for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note. On behalf of the plaintiff,^PWs 1 to 3 were examined and the defendants’ counsel also cross-examined them. After closure of the plaintiffs side evidence, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.767/2023 seeking to recall PW.1 and to mark the account statement^{ofherhusband.} Said I.A. was allowed by docket order dt. 11.03.2024, which is impugned in the present C.R.P.

¶58

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the plaintiff filed I.A. with following prayer:

¶59

“For the reasons disclosed in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to reopen the matter from the Respondents / defendants’ side evidence and permit the petitioner to lead her further chief examination evidence and to mark the statement of account of petitioner’s husband lying in State Bank of India, Mogaltur branch Account No,00000030409156859 from 01.07.2018 to 31.12.2018.”

¶60

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that in the prayer it is pleaded that to reopen the matter from the respondents / defendants’^sideevidence and permit the petitioner to lead her further chief^{examinationevidenceandto} mark the statement of account of the husband of plaintiff. He further contends

¶61

4

¶62

that the defendants’ side evidence was not yet commenced^{andassuch,the} suit from the respondents / defendants side question of reopening the evidence does not arise. As such, the learned Judge^{oughttohavereturned} the petition.

¶63

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff^states that it is only a typographical error crept in drafting the petition in I.A.No.767/2023, whereas in I.A.No.768/2023, it is^{correctlymentionedas} plaintiffs side evidence to recall PW.1. But, the learned^{JuniorCivilJudge} passed the order, which reads as follows;

¶64

“This is a petition filed by the petitioner / Plaintiff^to recall P.W.1 to mark the account statement of her husband which was issued by State Bank of India, Mogalthur. Xxxxxxxxxx

¶65

behalf of Plaintiff, PW.1 to P.W.3 were Perused the record. Admittedly, on examined, When matter posted for Defendant side evidence. Petitioner^filedpresent application along with document petition which is the account statement of her husband. Therefore, her evidence is recalled and also^{matterisreopenedforPlaintiff} further chief examination.

¶66

This Court perused the entire material. As seen^{fromtheprayerportion} of l.A.No.767/2023, it is only due to inadvertence^{andmistakenlyitwastyped} as respondents / defendants’ side evidence, but the learned^{trialJudgehas} passed the order correctly stating as plaintiff’s side^evidence.

¶67