Dismissed¶31

Kopparthi Sathyanarayana v. Rachaputi Venkata Krishna Prasad

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Apr 2026CRP/1227/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed at admission stage; Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati; Justice K Suresh Reddy; Article 227 of the Constitution of India; Order 14 Rule 5 r/w Section 151 CPC; framing of additional issues; belated application after seven years at arguments stage; suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction (O.S.No.8 of 2015); I.A.No.76 of 2026; VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District; no illegality or irregularity in trial court order; no costs; interlocutory applications closed.

What did the court decide?

As seen from the impugned order, there is no illegality or irregularity in the dismissal of the application to frame additional issues. ¶27

Kopparthi Sathyanarayana Vs Rachaputi… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010219292026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3239]

¶5

FRIDAY, T H E TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY

¶8

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1227/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

KOPPARTHI SATHY A NARAYANA, (DIED)

¶11

GUDIMETLA MUNI K R ISHNAIAH,, S/O LATE CHINNA SES H AIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.840, BA L AJI NAGAR, TIRUMALA, TIRUPA T I DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

RACHAPUTI VENK A TA KRISHNA PRASAD, S/O.LATE S UBBARAYA GUPTA, AGED AB O UT 62 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO.25-2-914, STREET, SAVITRI NAGAR, NELLORE-2, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

¶15

RACHAPUTI MONI K A, D/O.VENKATA KRISHNA PRA S AD, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O.D.NO.25-2-914, 1ST STRE E T, SAVITRI NAGAR, NELLORE- 2 , SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,prayi n g that in the circumstances stated in th e grounds filed herein,the High Court m a y be pleased topleased to allow the civil revision petition and setting aside the dismissal order passed in I.A.No. 76 of 20 2 6 in O.S.No. 8 of 2015 on the file of t h e court of VII Additional District Judge G udur SPSR Nellore District, dated 0 7 .04.2026. and pass

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶19

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 grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No. 8 of 2015 on the file of the court of VII Additional District Judge Gudur :: SPSR Nellore District, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, in the interest of Justice and to pass

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶21

1.SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

¶24

The Court made the following Order:

¶25

Questioning the order dated 07.04.2026 in I.A.No.76/2026 in O.S.No.8 of 2015 passed by the learned VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District, dismissing the petition under Order 14 Rule 5 r/w Section 151 CPC, the defendants filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶26

The respondents/plaintiffs filed the above suit for declaration of title and also for permanent injunction. Issues were framed in the above suit on 24.01.2019. The suit was filed in the year 2015. Thereafter, the trial of the case commenced and the suit posted for arguments. At that stage, the defendants filed the present application under Order 14 Rule 5 r/w Section 151 CPC to frame the proposed additional issues. The learned trial Judge dismissed the application holding that though the issues were framed in the year 2019, the defendants kept quiet till 2026.

¶27

As seen from the impugned order, there is no illegality or irregularity. Admittedly, the suit is filed in the year 2015 and the issues were framed on 24.01.2019. The trial also has been concluded and the suit is posted for arguments. At that stage, the defendants filed the present application.

¶28

Having kept quiet for a period of seven years, the petitioner came up with the present application in the year 2026, that too at the stage of arguments.

¶29

As such, there are no merits in the present Civil Revision Petition and the

¶30

same is liable to be dismissed.

¶31

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs.

¶32

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶33

__________________ K SURESH REDDY, J

¶34

24.04.2026 MVA / RMD