APHC010217502025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

FRIDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1094 of 2025

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1092 of 2025

Between:

1. AMUDALA VEERAMMA, W/O LATE YESU, AGED 54 YEARS,

D.NO.8-307, MALLAYYAPETA. RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST

GODAVARI DISTRICT.

1. MORAMPUDI NAGAMANI, D/O LATE VEERA VENKANNA, AGED 36

YEARS, D.NO.8-307, MALLAYYAPETA, RAJ AMAHENDRAVARAM.

EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

2. MORAMPUDI SATHIBABU, S/O LATE VEERA VENKANNA, AGED 33

YEARS, D.NO.8

RAJARNAHENDRAVARAM. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

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 Memorandum of Grounds of Revision before t

against the Common Orders dt.12

District and Sessions Judge cum SPL Court for Trial of Offences Against

Women, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, passed in I.A.No.574 of 2024

CRP Nos.1092 & 1094 of 2025

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1092/2025

Along with

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1094 of 2025

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1092 of 2025

AMUDALA VEERAMMA, W/O LATE YESU, AGED 54 YEARS,

307, MALLAYYAPETA. RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST

GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

MORAMPUDI NAGAMANI, D/O LATE VEERA VENKANNA, AGED 36

307, MALLAYYAPETA, RAJ AMAHENDRAVARAM.

EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

MORAMPUDI SATHIBABU, S/O LATE VEERA VENKANNA, AGED 33

YEARS, D.NO.8 -307, MALLAYYAPETA,NO.1 862

DRAVARAM. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

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

Memorandum of Grounds of Revision before this Hon'ble Court

against the Common Orders dt.12-03-2025 by the Court of the VIII Addl.

District and Sessions Judge cum SPL Court for Trial of Offences Against

Women, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, passed in I.A.No.574 of 2024

RC,J

CRP Nos.1092 & 1094 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

[3332]

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

AMUDALA VEERAMMA, W/O LATE YESU, AGED 54 YEARS,

307, MALLAYYAPETA. RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST

...PETITIONER

MORAMPUDI NAGAMANI, D/O LATE VEERA VENKANNA, AGED 36

307, MALLAYYAPETA, RAJ AMAHENDRAVARAM.

MORAMPUDI SATHIBABU, S/O LATE VEERA VENKANNA, AGED 33

307, MALLAYYAPETA,NO.1 862 -

DRAVARAM. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

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

his Hon'ble Court

2025 by the Court of the VIII Addl.

District and Sessions Judge cum SPL Court for Trial of Offences Against

Women, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, passed in I.A.No.574 of 2024

RC,J

CRP Nos.1092 & 1094 of 2025

2

in A.S.No.62 of 2023 in O.S.No.588 of 2009, filed by Respondents as

Respondents in Appeal and seeking to Receive Additional Evidence on the

Appeal side in I.A.No.575 of 2024 and also Petition to reopen the Plaintiffs' -

Appellants' Evidence in I.A.No.574 of 2024. Now the present Revision is

preferred against the Orders in I.A.No.574 of 2024. Aggrieved by allowing the

Petition to Reopen the Plaintiffs' Evidence, the Petitioner prefers

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

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 Extend the Interim Orders Granted in IA. No. 1 of 2025 in

CRP No. 1092 of 2025 dt.09-05-2025 and extended on 01- 08-2025, until

further orders of this Hon'ble Court pending disposal of the CRP, and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. P RAJESH BABU

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. SATISH SANDU

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1094/2025

Between:

1. AMUDALA VEERAMMA, W/O LATE YESU, AGED 54 YEARS,

D.NO.8-307, MALLAYYAPETA. RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST

GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. MORAMPUDI NAGAMANI, D / O LATE VEERA VENKANNA, AGED 36

YEARS, D.NO.8-307, MALLAYYAPETA, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

2. MORAMPUDI SATHIBABU, S/O LATE VEERA VENKANNA, AGED 33

YEARS, D.NO.8-307, MALLAYYAPETA, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S):

RC,J

CRP Nos.1092 & 1094 of 2025

3

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 Revision by setting-aside the Orders dt.12-03-2025 in

I.A.No.575 of 2024 in A.S.No.62 of 2023 in O.S.No.588 of 2009 of the Court of

the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge cum SPL Court for Trial of Offences

Against Women East Godavari at Rajarnahendravaram, by calling for the

records of the A.S.No.62 of 2023 and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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 order dispensing with the filing of certified copy of the order dt. 12.03.2025

in A.S.No.62 of 2023 pending on the file of the court of the VIII Addl. District

and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl. Court for trial of offences against women, East

Godavati at Rajamahendravaram, pending disposal of the CRP, and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

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 grant interim stay of all further proceedings of the appeal in A.S.No.62 of

2023 pending on the file of the court of the VIII Addl. District and Sessions

Judge-cum-Spl. Court for trial of offences against women, East Godavati at

Rajamahendravaram, pending disposal of the CRP, and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. P RAJESH BABU

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. SATISH SANDU

RC,J

CRP Nos.1092 & 1094 of 2025

4

COMMON ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed questioning the legality and

correctness of the docket order dated 12.03.2025 passed in I.A.Nos.574 &

575 of 2024 in A.S.No.62 of 2023 by the learned VII Additional District Judge,

Rajamahendravaram.

2. The Revisionist is the appellant while the respondents are the

respondents in the Appeal, whereas defendant and plaintiffs respectively in

the suit in O.S.No.588 of 2009.

3. The facts that led to filing of these Civil Revision Petitions, in brief,

are that one Amudala Mangamma filed the suit vide O.S.No.588 of 2009 for

declaration of her right and title over the plaint schedule property and for

other reliefs, contending that she along with her husband purchased the

plaint schedule property and that her husband executed a Will in her favour

bequeathing his half share in the plaint schedule property. She died pending

suit. The respondents herein came on record as plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 as Legal

Representatives of the deceased sole plaintiffs contending that the sole

plaintiff executed Will dated 30.11.2009 in their favour bequeathing the plaint

schedule property. The suit was decreed the suit upholding the Will

propounded by the sole plaintiff further observing that since the deceased

plaintiff herself admitted in her evidence about execution of Will in favour of

RC,J

CRP Nos.1092 & 1094 of 2025

5

plaintiffs 2 and 3, which is not in dispute. The Revisionist preferred appeal

vide A.S.No.62 of 2023. In that appeal, the respondents/plaintiff nos. 2 and 3

filed petitions vide I.A.No.574 of 2024 to reopen the plaintiffs’ evidence and

permit them to adduce additional evidence on their behalf for the purpose of

marking the registered Will dated 30.11.2009 already available on record. The

Revisionist resisted the relief sought in the petitions by filing counter

contending that no proper and sufficient reasons were assigned as to why the

plaintiffs did not mark the Will during trial before the Trial Court and none of

the grounds required to entertain application under Order XLI, Rule-27 CPC

are made out and even if such conditions are available, the appellate Court

has to set aside the decree and remand the matter to trial Court to take

evidence by marking the documents. The learned appellate Court, upon

hearing the counsel on record and upon perusing the material available,

allowed the petitions. The said orders have been assailed in these Civil

Revision Petitions.

4. Inasmuch as both the Civil Revision Petitions stems out of a common

order, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common

order.

5. Heard Sri P.Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the Civil Revision

Petitioner and Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for respondents.

RC,J

CRP Nos.1092 & 1094 of 2025

6

6. Sri P.Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, while

reiterating the contents of the counters filed before the trial Court, would

contend that the respondents did not satisfy any of the conditions envisaged

in Clauses (a), (aa) & (b) of Sub Section (1) of Order XLI, Rule 27 of Code of

Civil Procedure and though the grounds sought in the applications to reopen

and receive additional evidence do not fall within the purview of Order XLI,

Rule-27 CPC, the learned appellate Judge, even without assigning any

reasons, erroneously allowed the petitions and thus there is improper exercise

of jurisdiction and hence the orders impugned are liable to be set aside. He

would further contend that even if the learned Appellate Judge satisfies that

conditions mentioned in Order-XLI, Rule-27 CPC did exist, he has to set aside

the decree and remand the matter to the trial Court for marking the

document, taking the evidence and return a finding based on the said

document, however, the Appellate Judge instead of following the established

procedure, allowed the petitions for recording evidence by appellate Court

itself. He would further contend that the applications filed under Order-XLI,

Rule-27 should have to be decided along with the appeal in a more

satisfactory manner, however the learned Appellate Judge committed grave

error in prematurely deciding the petition. He would further contend that the

appellate Court should accept additional evidence only if it is satisfied that the

evidence was relevant and could not have been produced in the lower court

RC,J

CRP Nos.1092 & 1094 of 2025

7

despite due diligence, hence the appellate Judge though the respondents did

not even plead due diligence, erroneously allowed the petition. He would

further contend that parities do not have a vested right to produce additional

evidence in the appellate Court and unless the specific conditions under Order

XLI, Rule-27 are met, additional evidence cannot be allowed. He would

further contend that there is not even a pleading regarding due diligence and

that none of the specific conditions under Order XLI, Rule-27 are met,

however, the learned Appellate Judge had erroneously allowed the petition

and the said orders since suffer from improper exercise of jurisdiction are to

be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petitions.

In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on State of

Rajasthan vs. T.N.Sahani and others

1

, Gobind Singh and others vs.

Union of India and others

2

and Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddain and

another

3

7. On the other hand, Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for

respondents/plaintiff nos.2 and 3, while reiterating the contents of the

affidavits filed in support of the petitions in the appellate Court, would

contend that upon allowing a petition for additional evidence under Order XLI,

Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), an Appellate Court holds the

1

. (2001) 10 Supreme Court Cases 619

2

. 2026 INSC 211

3

. (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 148

RC,J

CRP Nos.1092 & 1094 of 2025

8

discretion to either record the evidence directly, direct a subordinate court to

take the evidence, or remand the case to the trial court for retrial if necessary

and taking into consideration the purpose for which the parties want to

adduce additional evidence, the learned Appellate Judge had rightly chosen to

record the evidence directly instead remanding the case to trial Court, since

no retrial is found necessary and therefore, there is proper exercise of

jurisdiction empowered by Order-XLI, Rule-27 CPC. He would further contend

that the Will though was marked in the application filed by them to come on

record as Legal Representatives of the sole plaintiff, due to oversight and

inadvertency the same could not be marked in the suit and therefore, the is

no lack of due diligence on the part of the respondents and that marking of

the Will is very much essential for reaching an effective conclusion. He would

further contend that the testatrix of the Will herself admitted in her evidence

regarding execution of the Will in favour of the respondents and the learned

Trial Judge had also observed in the judgment and there is no dispute

regarding the Will in favour of the respondents. He would further contend that

the learned appellate Judge upon meticulous analysis of the facts and

circumstances of the case had rightly allowed the petitions deciding to mark

the document, record the evidence by the appellate Court itself and the same

is considered to be the best efficient method to avoid remanding the case,

since recording additional evidence is necessary to clear up the ambiguity in

RC,J

CRP Nos.1092 & 1094 of 2025

9

the Judgment and that too the execution of the Will was admitted by the

testatrix herself. He would further contend that the learned Appellate Judge

upon proper analysis of the facts and upon application of relevant law had

chosen to record the evidence to decide the matter upon such additional

evidence and there is neither procedural unfairness nor impropriety in the

impugned orders and hence does not require interference of this Court. He

would further contend that documents marked in interlocutory applications

cannot be treated as evidence except to enable the Court to prima facie come

to a conclusion about the merits or demerits of the contentions advance and

therefore, the learned Appellate Judge had allowed both the petitions.

Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petitions.

In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for respondents

relied upon T.Bhopal Reddy and another vs. K.R.Lakshmi Bai and

another

4

, H.P.Vedavyasachar vs. Shivashankara and another

5

,

Corporation of Madras an another vs. M.Parthasarathy and others

6

Uttaradi Matt vs. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt

7

, Kevasa Reddy vs.

4

. 1998(1) ALD 779 (DB)

5

. (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 231

6

. (2018)9 Supreme Court cases 445

7

. (2018) 10 Supreme Court Cases 484

RC,J

CRP Nos.1092 & 1094 of 2025

10

A.Visupaksha Reddy (died) and 7 others

8

and Palla Aruna vs. Botta

Seetharamma (died)

9

.

8. Perused the material available on record and considered the

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

9. In the appeal, the respondents/plaintiffs filed the petitions to reopen

the record additional documentary evidence on their behalf on the ground

that though the Will was marked in the petition filed by them to come on

record as Legal Representatives of the sole plaintiff, unfortunately, the said

Will was not marked in the suit. The said petitions were allowed by the

learned Appellate Judge vide impugned orders observing that fair hearing is

essential prior to conclusion of hearing and even though the parties

approached at the fag-end of the stage, reliable reasons are found in the

petitions.

10. A perusal of the judgment delivered by the learned trial Judge

would indicate that the sole plaintiff, who is testatrix of the Will, now sought

to be marked by way of additional evidence, in her evidence admitted

execution of the Will in favour of the respondents/ plaintiffs 2 and 3. In fact,

on the strength of the said Will, the plaintiffs 2 and 3 came on record after

demise of the sole plaintiff. It is also evident from the submissions that the

8

. 2015 LawSuit(Hyd) 372

9

, orders dated 10.06.2019 passed in CMA No.1359 of 2018 by coordinate bench of this Court

RC,J

CRP Nos.1092 & 1094 of 2025

11

said Will was marked in the application filed by the plaintiff nos.2 and 3 to

come on record as Legal Representatives of the deceased sole plaintiff.

11. In State of Rajastan (supra 1) relied on by the learned counsel

for the Revision Petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the

application under Order 41, Rule 27 should have been decided along with the

appeal. Had the Court found the documents necessary to pronounce the

judgment in the appeal in a more satisfactory manner it would have allowed

the same; if not, the same would have been dismissed at that stage. But

taking a view on the application before hearing of the appeal, would be

inappropriate.

12. In the instant case, arguments in the appeal have been heard and

at that stage these petitions came to be filed and the learned Appellate Judge

having found that this is a fit case to reopen the case on behalf of the

plaintiffs for producing proposed additional evidence. Therefore, the decision

relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner also comes to aid of the

respondents regarding the stage at which the additional evidence petition has

to be decided.

13. In Gobind Singh and others (supra 2) relied on by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an appellate

court can accept additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of

RC,J

CRP Nos.1092 & 1094 of 2025

12

Civil Procedure (CPC) only if it is satisfied that the evidence was relevant and

could not have been produced in the lower court despite due diligence.

14. In Union of India (supra 3), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that

parties do not have a vested right to produce additional evidence in the

appellate court. Additional evidence can only be allowed if specific conditions

under Order XLI Rule 27 are met, such as: the trial court improperly refused

to accept evidence, the evidence could not have been produced earlier

despite due diligence and the appellate court requires the evidence to deliver

a judgment. The appellate court should not use this rule to fill gaps in a case

or cure deficiencies in evidence that should have been produced during the

original trial. If the existing record is sufficient to pronounce a judgment, the

appellate court should refuse the production of additional evidence.

15. As stated supra, the Will was filed along with application to come on

record as Legal Representatives and the same was marked in that petition

and due to inadvertency the same could not be marked in the suit. The suit

was filed by sole plaintiff for declaration of her right by propounding a Will

said to have been executed by her husband and the learned trial Judge came

to the conclusion that the Will propounded by the sole plaintiff was proved

and accordingly declared the right and title of the sole plaintiff over the plaint

schedule property and directed the defendant to deliver vacant possession of

the property to the plaintiff nos.2 and 3, who succeeded the property after

RC,J

CRP Nos.1092 & 1094 of 2025

13

demise of plaintiff no.1. Therefore, none of the contingencies that are

required to reject production of additional evidence as held by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the above referred decisions are present in the case. Therefore,

the learned Appellate Judge had exercised the discretion provided under 41,

Rule 27 CPC in a right perspective in allowing the petition.

16. In the decision in H.P.Vedavyasachar (supra 5) relied on by

learned counsel for respondents, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when

an application for adducing additional evidence is allowed the appellate court

has two options open to it. It may record the evidence itself or it may direct

the trial Court to do so.

17. In Corporation of Madras and another (supra 6) relied on by

learned counsel for respondents, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, in our

opinion rightly, the first appellate court had two options, first it could have

either set aside the entire judgment/decree of the trial Court by taking

recourse to the provisions of Order 41, Rule 23-A of the Code and remanded

the case to the trial curt for retrial in the suits so as to enable the parties to

adduce oral evidence to prove the additional evidence in accordance with law

or second, it had an option to invoke the powers under Order 41 Rule 25 of

the Code by retaining the appeals to itself and remitting the case to the trial

court for limited trial on particular issues arising in the case in the light of

RC,J

CRP Nos.1092 & 1094 of 2025

14

additional evidence which was taken on record and invite findings of the trial

Court on such limited issues to enable the first appellate Court to decide the

appeals on merits.

18. In Uttaradi Mutt (supra 7) relied on by learned counsel for

respondents, the Hon’ble Supreme Court by following H.P.Vedavyasachar

(supra 6) gave directions to the first appellate Court to record additional

evidence and also consider the question of genuineness and authenticity of

the additional evidence, including as to whether the contents thereof have

been proved by the party relying thereon, and thereafter, to return the

evidence to the High Court together with its findings thereon and reasons

therefor.

19. In Kesava Reddy (supra 8) relied on by the learned counsel for

the respondents, a coordinate Bench of unified High Court held that the lower

appellate Court has committed a serious procedural illegality in remitting the

case to the trial Court and consequently the lower appellate Court is directed

to decide as to whether it will itself record the evidence or direct the trial

Court to record the evidence and forward the same to it. After recording of

the evidence either by itself or by the trial Court, the lower appellate Court

shall dispose of the appeal on merits.

RC,J

CRP Nos.1092 & 1094 of 2025

15

20. In Palla Aruna (supra 9) relied on by the learned counsel for

respondents, a coordinate bench of this Court, found fault with the appellate

court in allowing the entire appeal and remanding the matter for fresh

evidence after allowing the applications filed by the parties for receiving

additional evidence and further observed that the appellate court had an

option of deciding to record the evidence by itself or directing the lower court

to take such evidence and send back the findings to the appellate Court.

21. The observations made in the above decisions relied on by the

learned counsel for the respondents would unequivocally suggest that

whenever additional evidence applications are allowed the appellate Judge

can opt to record evidence by itself or direct the trial Court to record the

evidence and forward the same to it. Simply because additional evidence

application is allowed, the decree appealed against need not be set aside.

Therefore, the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner

in this regard are untenable and hence they are rejected.

22. The learned Appellate Judge upon allowing the additional evidence

applications had chosen to record evidence by itself and decide the matter,

which is one of the options available and therefore, there is no procedural

irregularity in doing so. The Civil Revision Petitions lack merit and they are

liable to be dismissed.

RC,J

CRP Nos.1092 & 1094 of 2025

16

23. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall

be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________

JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

8

th

MAY, 2026. RR