Pulipati Hari Jagan Mohana Rao, Vs Pulipati Krishna Venkata Sai Kumar

PULIPATI KRISHNA VENKATA SAI KUMAR, S/O. SHYAM SUNDAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O. MANGALAGIRI TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MANDADAM VILLAGE, THULLUR MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶17

PULIPATI LAKSHMI KUMARI, (DIED) W/O. HARI JAGAN MOHANA RAO.

¶18

PULIPATI SYAM SUNDAR, S/O. HARI JAGAN MOHANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 3-145, 3RD WARD MANGALAGIRI TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MANDADAM VILLAGE, THULLUR MANDAL GUNTUR

¶19

2

¶20

VS,J C.R.P.No.752 of 2025

¶21

DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

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 allow the C.R.P. and set aside the Order and Decree dated 01.02.2025of the Honble II Addl. District Judge, Guntur and pass

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶25

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 further proceedings in O.S.No.456 of 2014 on the file of the Hon9ble II Addl. District Judge, Guntur and pass

¶26

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶27

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 vacate the interim stay granted in I.A.No. 1 of 2025 in C.R.P.No.752 of 20025 dated 21-03-2025 and pass o

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶29

1.DODDALA YATHINDRA DEV

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶31

1.MATADA YUVASIVA SWAMY

¶32

The Court made the following:

¶33

3

¶34

VS,J C.R.P.No.752 of 2025

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

This Civil Revision Petition came to be filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 4 aggrieved by the order dated 01.02.2025 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Guntur in I.A.No.1158 of 2023 in O.S.No.456 of 2014 whereby, the Court below allowed the application filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter be referred to as 8CPC9), for recording further cross examination of D.W.1 before the Court instead of recording by the Advocate Commissioner.

¶37

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶38

(a) The defendant Nos.1 and 2, who are wife and husband, performed marriage of their elder son i.e. defendant No.3 with one Pulipati Jayasri and they were blessed with the plaintiff. The 4^th defendant is the younger son of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The plaintiff filed the subject suit for partition of the suit schedule properties into three equal shares in between defendant Nos.1,3 and 4 and to further partition the 3^rd defendant9s share into two equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff.

¶39

(b) Pending the said suit, the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 filed I.A.No.1316 of 2022 under Order XXVI Rule 9 and under Section 151 of CPC

¶40

to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for recording the evidence of D.W.1.

¶41

4

¶42

VS,J C.R.P.No.752 of 2025

¶43

Considering the rival contentions of both the parties, the Court below, vide order dated 13.06.2023 appointed an advocate commissioner for recording evidence of D.W.1.

¶44

(c) It is the contention of the plaintiff that while recording the evidence, D.W.1 is said to have admitted several facts, which he altered upon the intervention of his counsel. Though plaintiff9s counsel requested the Advocate Commissioner to record the said admissions, the same could not be recorded. As the learned counsel for the defendants did not cooperate with the Advocate Commissioner, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1158 of 2023 under Section 151 of CPC requesting the Court below to record further evidence of D.W.1 in the Court.

¶45

(d) The Court below, relying on the allegations of the plaintiff that D.W.1 has not cooperated with the Advocate Commissioner, allowed the application filed by the plaintiff vide order dated 01.02.2025 and directed D.W.1 to appear before the Court for further cross examination. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant Nos.1 and 4 filed the present civil revision petition.

¶46

Heard Sri. D. Yathindra Dev, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. M. Yuva Siva Swamy, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶47

Perused the entire material available on record. As D.W.1 is aged 82 years and is suffering from lymphatic filariasis and is unable to walk and

5

VS,J

C.R.P.No.752 of 2025

travel, the Court below, in the application (I.A.No.1136 of 2022) filed by the defendants, appointed an Advocate Commissioner on 13.06.2023 to record the further evidence of D.W.1. It is contended by the plaintiff in the application filed by him before the Court below that D.W.1 has not cooperated with the advocate commissioner. In view of the disputed facts, this Court, on 12.09.2025, directed the II Additional District Court, Guntur to obtain the sworn affidavit of the advocate commissioner appointed on 13.06.2023 stating the facts with regard to the happenings on 13.07.2023.

¶52

In compliance to the said direction, the learned II Additional District Judge, Guntur, vide letter dated 22.09.2025, submitted the sworn affidavit submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. It is stated in the said affidavit that she has informed the learned counsel for both the parties that she would execute the warrant on 13.07.2023 at about 03.00 p.m. On 13.07.2023, it is stated that D.W.1 and his counsel were present at 03.00 p.m., but the plaintiff and his counsel did not turn up until 04.30 p.m. As such, the advocate commissioner started recording the evidence of D.W.1 at 04.30 p.m. It is stated that for the initial 40 minutes, there was no interruption and all of a sudden, learned counsel for the plaintiff started demanding the advocate commissioner to record the statement which D.W.1 did not depose. As the advocate commissioner refused to do so, learned counsel for the plaintiff

¶53

6

¶54

VS,J C.R.P.No.752 of 2025

¶55

refused to proceed with the cross examination and forced the advocate commissioner to defer the cross examination of D.W.1.

¶56

It is clear from the sworn affidavit submitted by the advocate commissioner that it is the plaintiff and his counsel who has not cooperated with the advocate commissioner during the course of cross examination of D.W.1. But, it appears that the plaintiff filed the subject application before the Court below alleging that D.W.1 and his counsel have not cooperated with the advocate commissioner. It appears that the plaintiff has filed the said application with an ulterior motive. Even otherwise, the Court below has passed the impugned order dated 01.02.2025 directing D.W.1 to appear before the Court for further cross examination, by merely relying on the allegations raised by the plaintiff. The Court below ought to have considered

¶57

the age and health condition of D.W.1 and ought to have conducted an enquiry into such allegations, before directing D.W.1 to appear before it.

¶58

Article 227 deals with power of superintendence by the High Court over all Subordinate Court and Tribunals. The power of superintendence conferred upon the High Court by Article 227 is not confined to administrative superintendence only, but includes the power of judicial revision also even where no appeal or revision lies to the High Court under the ordinary law, rather power under this Article is wider than that of Article 226 in the sense that it is not subject to those technicalities of procedure or traditional fetters

¶59

7

¶60

VS,J C.R.P.No.752 of 2025

¶61

which are to be found in certiorari jurisdiction and such power can also be exercised suo motu.

¶62

It is a well settled principle that the High Court can exercise supervisory power over the subordinate Courts under Article 227 of Constitution of India, as held by the Apex Court in “ State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu@

¶63

Afsan Guru¹ .

¶64

As per the law laid down by the Apex Court, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is to be exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.

¶65

In view of my foregoing discussion, I find that the order of the trial Court is erroneous as it has failed to exercise discretion properly and such finding is liable to be set aside by exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶66

1 2003 (6) SCC 641

¶67

8

¶68

VS,J C.R.P.No.752 of 2025

¶69

In view of the foregoing discussion, this civil revision petition is allowed and the order dated 01.02.2025 passed by the learned II Additional District Court, Guntur in I.A.No.1158 of 2023 in O.S.No.456 of 2014 is hereby setaside. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶70

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

¶71

___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶72

Date:11.12.2025.

¶73

Gss

Pulipati Hari Jagan Mohana Rao, v. Pulipati Krishna Venkata Sai Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pulipati Hari Jagan Mohana Rao, v. Pulipati Krishna Venkata Sai Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ambati Mallikarjuna Vs the State of Ap

Kilaparthi Kalpana Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Gudiseva Nagendram Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

PeddibhotlaSubrahmanya Ravi Shastry, Vs PeddibhotlaSatya Surya Divya

Kuntla Lalitha Alias Lalithamma Vs Anil Kumar Singhal, Ias(Discharged)

V.M.Venkata Deepak Vs State of Andhra Pradesh