APHC010510032023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3333]

THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2580 and 2581 of 2023

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2580/2023

Between:

1. GADDE VENKATA SUSEELA, D/O

GADDEVENKATESWARA RAO, AGED 50 YEARS, R/O

D.NO.2-118, ELAMARRU VILLAGE, PEDAPARUPUDI

MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, GUDIVADA J.C.J.C.

2. CHERUKURI SATYANARAYANA,, S/O JANARDHANA RAO,

HINDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, AGRICULTURAL

COOLIE, R/O ELAMARRU VILLAGE, PEDAPARUPUDI

MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, GUDIVADA J.C.J.C.

3. CHERUKURI BALASESHU,, S/O SATYA NARAYANA,

HINDU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, AGRICULTURE COOLIE,

R/O D.NO.2-118, ELAMARRU VILLAGE, PEDAPARUPUDI

MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, GUDIVADA J.C.J.C.

4. CHEKURI HARI KRISHNA, , S/O SATYNARAYANA, HINDU,

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, R/O

D.NO.4-89, OPPOSITE APSRTC BUS STAND, UCO BANK

UPSTARI, HANUMAN JUNCTION, BAPULAPADU MANDAL,

KRISHNA DISTRICT.

5. NANDELLA DEVIKA,, W/O LATE ANJANEYULU, HINDU,

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O HANUMAN

JUNCTION, BAPULAPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

6. VADDE NAGAMANI,, W/O LATE SUBBA RAO, HINDU,

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O ELAMARRU

VILLAGE, PEDAPARUPUDI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

Reserved on 04.12.2025

Pronounced on 08.01.2026

Uploaded on 08.01.2026

VS,J

crps_2580 and 2581_2023

2

1. GADDE SEETHAMAHA LAKSHMI, W/O LATE

VENKATESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED 72 YEARS, R/O

D.NO.2-118, ELAMARRU VILLAGE,

PEDAPARUPUDIMANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT,

GUDIVADA J.C.J.C.

2. GADDE RAVI KUMAR, S/O LATE VENKATESWARA RAO,

HINDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,

R/O D.NO.2 -118, ELAMARRU VILLAGE,

PEDAPARUPUDIMANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, GUDIVADA

J.C.J.C.

3. GADDE LAKSHMI NARAYANA, S/O LATE VENKATESWARA

RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PRIVATE

EMPLOYEE, R/O 1 -9-324/113/1, VN REDDY NAGAR

COLONY, ZPHS SCHOOL, KUSHIGUDA, SECUNDRABAD,

HYDERABAD, TELANGANA - 500062.

4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE GUDI VADA COOPERATIVE

URBAN BANK LTD., GUDIVADA HEAD OFFICE BRANCH.

5. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KRISHNA DISTRICT

COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD., HANUMAN

JUNCTION.

...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 pleased toAggrieved by the orders dated 07/08/2023

passed by the Court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada, in I.A.

No.156 of 2020 in I.A. No.343 of 2019 in O.S. No.92 of 2019, the

Petitioners beg to submit the present Revision Petition

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

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.92 of 2019 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil

Judge, Gudivada, and pass such

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. P S P SURESH KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU

2.

VS,J

crps_2580 and 2581_2023

3

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2581/2023

Between:

1. GADDE VENKATA SUSEELA, D/O

GADDEVENKATESWARA RAO, AGED 50 YEARS, R/O

D.NO.2-118, ELAMARRU VILLAGE, PEDAPARUPUDI

MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, GUDIVADA J.C.J.C.

2. CHERUKURI SATYANARAYANA,, S/O JANARDHANA RAO,

HINDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, AGRICULTU RAL

COOLIE, R/O ELAMARRU VILLAGE, PEDAPARUPUDI

MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, GUDIVADA J.C.J.C.

3. CHERUKURI BALASESHU,, S/O SATYANARAYANA,

HINDU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, AGRICULTURE COOLIE,

R/O D.NO.2-118, ELAMARRU VILLAGE, PEDAPARUPUDI

MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, GUDIVADA J.C.J.C.

4. CHEKURI HARI KRISHNA,, S/O SATYNARAYANA, HINDU,

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, R/O

D.NO.4-89, OPPOSITE APSRTC BUS STAND, UCO BANK

UPSTARI, HANUMAN JUNCTION, BAPULAPADU MANDAL,

KRISHNA DISTRICT.

5. NANDELLA DEVIKA,, W/O LATE ANJANEYULU, HINDU,

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O HANUMAN

JUNCTION, BAPULAPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. GADDE SEETHAMAHA LAKSHMI, W/O LATE

VENKATESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED 72 YEARS, R/O

D.NO.2-118, ELAMARRU VILLAG E,

PEDAPARUPUDIMANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, GUDIVADA

J.C.J.C.

2. GADDE RAVI KUMAR, S/O LATE VENKATESWARA RAO,

HINDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,

R/O D.NO.2 -118, ELAMARRU VILLAGE,

PEDAPARUPUDIMANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, GUDIVADA

J.C.J.C.

3. GADDE LAKSHMI NARAYANA, S/O LATE VENKATESWARA

RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PRIVATE

EMPLOYEE, R/O 1 -9-324/113/1, VN REDDY NAGAR

COLONY, ZPHS SCHOOL, KUSHIGUDA, SECUNDRABAD,

VS,J

crps_2580 and 2581_2023

4

HYDERABAD, TELANGANA 500062.

4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE GUDIVADA COOPERATIVE

URBAN BANK LTD., GUDIVADA HEAD OFFICE BRANCH.

5. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KRISHNA DISTRICT

COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD., HANUMAN

JUNCTION.

...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 pleased toAggrieved by the orders dated 07/08/2023

passed by the Court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada, in I.A.

No.871 of 2022 in LA. No.156 of 2020 in O.S. No.92 of 2019,

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

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 further

proceedings in O.S. No.92 of 2019 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil

Judge, Gudivada, and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. P S P SURESH KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU

2.

The Court made the following:

VS,J

crps_2580 and 2581_2023

5

COMMON ORDER:

Civil Revision Petition No.2580 of 2023 is filed by the

petitioners-plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

challenging the order dated 07.08.2023 passed in I.A.No.156 of

2020 in I.A.No.343 of 2019 in O.S.No.92 of 2019 by the

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada, whereby, the Trial Court

allowed the said interlocutory application filed Under Order VI Rule

17 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ―C.P.C.‖) to permit the

respondents/defendants to amend the pleadings mentioned in the

counter.

2) Civil Revision Petition No.2581 of 2023 is filed by the

petitioners-plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

challenging the order dated 07.08.2023 passed in I.A.No.871 of

2022 in I.A.No.156 of 2020 in O.S.No.92 of 2019 by the

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada, whereby, the Trial Court

allowed the said interlocutory application filed Under Order VIII Rule

1 (A) and Section 151 of the C.P.C. to receive the enclosed

document filed along with the application i.e. Will dated 18.01.2019

and to mark the same.

3) Since the petitioners and the respondents in both the revision

petitions are one and the same and the issue involved in these

revisions is identical, I find that it is appropriate to decide these

revision petitions by way of a common order.

4) The petitioners-plaintiffs filed O.S.No.92 of 2019 for partition

and separate possession of the suit schedule properties.

VS,J

crps_2580 and 2581_2023

6

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the defendants and they are contesting

the suit by filing written statement. The petitioners herein also filed

I.A.No.343 of 2019 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 requesting the

trial Court to grant injunction not to alienate the suit schedule

properties. When the said interlocutory application was coming up

for arguments, respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed I.A.No.871 of 2022

(subject matter of C.R.P.No.2581 of 2023) under Order VIII Rule

1(A) of CPC to receive a Will deed dated 18.01.2019 and mark the

same as exhibit. Along with the said petition to receive Will deed

dated 18.01.2019, the respondents – defendants also filed another

petition requesting the trial Court to amend counter-affidavit and to

delete certain portions in the counter affidavit. Though the

petitioners herein opposed the said amendments, the trial Court

vide orders dated 07.08.2023 allowed the said I.A.No.156 of 2020 in

I.A.No.343 of 2019 in O.S.No.92 of 2019 on payment of costs of

Rs.100/- payable to the respondents therein. I.A.No.871 of 2022 in

I.A.No.156 of 2020 filed by the defendants to receive the Will dated

18.01.2019 was also allowed by the trial Court on payment of

Rs.100/- payable to the respondents therein. Aggrieved by the

same, the petitioners – plaintiffs filed these two revision petitions.

5) When civil revision petition No.2580 of 2023 filed against the

order passed in I.A.No.156 of 2020 to amend the counter, came up

for hearing, on 13.10.2023, this Court passed the following interim

order:

―Having regard to the reasons mentioned in the ground of

revision and taking into account the submissions of the learned

VS,J

crps_2580 and 2581_2023

7

counsel for the petitioners, there shall be an interim stay of all

further proceedings in O.S.No.92 of 2019 on the file of learned

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada for a period of four (4)

weeks.‖

6) Thereafter, the said interim order has been extended from

time to time.

7) Learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that

the proposed amendment to counter is not permissible under Order

VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. since the proposed amendments are intending

to withdraw the basic facts admitted in the original Counter filed by

defendant No.1 during her life time. Order VIII Rule-1A of CPC has

to be invoked only for the purpose of filing documents in main Suit

but not in Interlocutory Applications. Hence, the Petition (I.A.No.871

of 2022, subject matter of C.R.P.No.2581 of 2023) filed by the

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 is not sustainable and the same needs to be

dismissed. The respondents pleaded about the Will Deed dated

18.01.2019 in the Written Statement, but failed to file the same. The

reason mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.871 of

2022 is that the said Will Deed was in his possession. The said

reason is not permissible as it is the duty of the respondents to file

the supporting documents along with the Written Statement,

therefore, the orders passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.156 of 2020

in I.A.No.343 of 2019 in O.S.No.92 of 2019 and in I.A.No.871 of

2022 in I.A.No.156 of 2020 in O.S.No.92 of 2019 are liable to be set

aside.

VS,J

crps_2580 and 2581_2023

8

8) Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 – defendant

Nos.1 to 3 contended that pleadings can be amended at any stage

of the proceedings and Will deed dated 18.01.2019 is very much

necessary for effective adjudication of the case, and the proposed

amendment would not change the nature of the suit, as such the

trial Court rightly allowed those petitions and requested to dismiss

the revisions.

9) As seen from the material on record, late Gadde

Venkateswararao has four daughters (Plaintiff No.1, 5 & 6 and Late

Cherkuri Bhavani) and two sons who are defendant Nos.2 and 3.

Defendant No.1 is the wife of Late Gadde VenkateswaraRao.

Plaintiff No.2 is the husband of Late Cherkuri Bhavani and Plaintiffs

Nos.3 and 4 are Children of Late Cherkuri Bhavani. Plaintiffs and

defendants are having right over the Plaint A and B Schedule

Properties which were purchased by Late Gadde Venkateswararao.

Similarly, plaintiffs and defendants have right over the deposits

detailed in ―C‖ Schedule Property which were made by Late Gadde

Venkateswararao with the Gudivada Co-operative Urban Bank

Limited. Gadde Venkateswararao died intestate on 27.03.2019 leaving

behind the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 as his Legal Heirs. Hence,

plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for 1/7

th

share each.

Hence, they filed O.S. No. 92 of 2019 seeking Partition and Separate

possession. Along with the suit, plaintiffs filed I.A.No.343 of 2019

seeking injunction against the defendants from alienating the suit

schedule properties. The respondents-defendant

Nos.1 to 3 filed I.A.No.156 of 2020 seeking amendment of pleadings

VS,J

crps_2580 and 2581_2023

9

in Counter in I.A.No.343 of 2019 by deleting certain portions and to

substitute the same with new pleadings regarding the vested right

and remainder rights of defendant No.1.

10) Respondents – defendants filed I.A.No.156 of 2020 under

Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. to amend the pleadings. For better

appreciation of the case, it is apposite to extract Oder VI Rule 17 of

C.P.C.

―17. Amendment of pleadings.—The Court may at

any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or

amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as

may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as

may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real

questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that

no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial

has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion

that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised

the matter before the commencement of trial.‖

11) It can be understood from the above that Order VI Rule 17

consists of two parts viz., the first part is that the Court may at any

stage of the proceedings allow either party to amend pleadings and

the second part is that such amendment shall be made for the

purpose of determining the real controversies raised between the

parties.

12) Over the years, through numerous judicial precedents certain

factors have been outlined for the application of

VS,J

crps_2580 and 2581_2023

10

Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. The Hon’ble Apex Court in ―Life

Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd.

And Another

1

‖, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners,

after considering numerous precedents in regard to the amendment

of pleadings, culled out certain principles:

(i) All amendments are to be allowed which are

necessary for determining the real question in controversy

provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other

side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the

word ―shall‖, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the

Code of Civil Procedure.

(ii) In the following scenario such applications should

be ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and

proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties

to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not

result in injustice to the other side.

(iii) Amendments, while generally should be allowed,

the same should be disallowed if –

(a) By the amendment, the parties seeking

amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission

made by the party which confers a right on the other side.

1

2022 SCC OnLine 1128

VS,J

crps_2580 and 2581_2023

11

(b) The amendment does not raise a time-barred

claim, resulting in the divesting of the other side of a

valuable accrued right (in certain situations)

(c) The amendment completely changes the nature of

the suit;

(d) The prayer for amendment is malafide,

(e) By the amendment, the other side should not lose

a valid defence.

(iv) Some general principles to be kept in mind are-

(I) The court should avoid a hyper -technical

approach; ordinarily be liberal, especially when the opposite

party can be compensated by costs.

(II) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is

intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the

plaint or introduce an additional or a new approach.

(III) The amendment should not change the cause of

action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the

case set up in the plaint.‖

13) In the present case, the defendants filed the said interlocutory

application to delete the sentence Nos.3 to 7 in page No.6 of the

counter from top which are as follows:

VS,J

crps_2580 and 2581_2023

12

"According to the terms of the said Will the petition 'A'

schedule property and AC.0.08 cents of site situated in

Bapulapadu village and fixed deposit were bequeathed to 1

st

respondent absolutely and they are described in the 'A'

schedule of the said Will".

14) The above sentences have to be substituted with the

following.

"According to the terms of the said Will the life

interest in the petition 'A' schedule properties alone

bequeathed to the 1st defendant except fixed deposits by

the deceased to enjoy the income without any right of

alienation and after death of the 1

st

petitioner the vested

reminder rights were bequeathed to the respondents 2 and

3 absolutely. The fixed deposit amounts were bequeathed to

the 1

st

respondent absolutely."

15) It appears that the proposed amendment to counter is

intending to withdraw the basic facts admitted in the original Counter

by defendant No.1 during her life time. Defendant No.1, during her

life time pleaded some aspects in the counter. Now by virtue of

deleting the same, the respondents – defendants cannot be

permitted to limit the share of defendant No.1 in the property. This

will result in the change of shares in the property, since the mother’s

share has to be allotted to all the parties and if the proposed

amendment is accepted, the exclusive share of the mother will go to

respondent Nos.2 and 3. The respondents – defendants are trying

VS,J

crps_2580 and 2581_2023

13

to withdraw the clear admission made by them by way of proposed

amendments. As per the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in ―Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev

Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Another‖ (referred supra), if the amendment

is intending to withdraw any clear admission made by the party

which confers a right on the other side, the same should be

disallowed and that the other side should not lose a valid defence by

the amendment. If the amendment sought for by the plaintiffs affects

the rights of the defendants, it cannot be permitted. As per the law

laid down in the said judgment, all amendments are to be allowed

which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy

provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side.

Further, no valid reasons were mentioned in the affidavit filed in

support of the I.A.No.156 of 2020 as to why the proposed

amendment is necessary for effective adjudication of the lis pending

between the parties. After the death of defendant No.1 who filed the

original Written Statement and original Counter in I.A. No. 343 of

2019, the proposed amendment is not permissible, since the said

amendment would change the very admissions made by the

deceased defendant No.1. Therefore, the order dated 07.08.2023

passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.156 of 2020 in I.A.No.343 of 2019

is liable to be set aside.

16) Further, respondents-defendants filed I.A.No.871 of 2022 in

I.A.No.156 of 2020 under Order VIII Rule 1 (A) of C.P.C. to receive

the Original Will dated 18.01.2019 and mark the same as exhibit.

VS,J

crps_2580 and 2581_2023

14

17) Order VIII Rule 1 (A ) of C.P.C. permits the parties to file the

documents in their support with the leave of the Court.

18) Learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs contended that

as the respondents – defendants did not file the Will dated

18.01.2019 along with the written statement, the genuineness of the

same is doubtful.

19) Learned counsel for the respondents – defendants contended

that the Court should take a lenient view when an application is

made for production of the documents and procedural and technical

hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while

doing substantial justice. In support of his contentions, he relied on

―Sugandhi (Dead) by L.Rs. and another Vs. P.Rajkumar

represented by his Power Agent Imam Oli

2

‖, wherein the Hon’ble

Apex Court held as follows:

―It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of

justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be

allowed to come in the way of the court while doing

substantial justice. 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. We

should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a

journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice

2

(2020) 10 SCC 706

VS,J

crps_2580 and 2581_2023

15

and the court is required to take appropriate steps to

thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute.

Therefore, the Court should take a lenient view when

an application is made for production of the documents‖

20) Admittedly, the respondents – defendants filed written

statement in O.S.No.92 of 2019, in paragraph No.9 of the written

statement, the defendants referred to the Will dated 18.01.2019,

which is as follows:

―It is submitted that the said Venkateswara Rao

executed a Will dated 18.01.2019 relating to all his

movable and immovable properties and the said

Venkateswara Rao executed the said will in a sound

and disposing state of mind and it was his last Will and

it came into operation after his death.‖

21) It is clear from the above, that the defendants referred to the

Will dated 18.01.2019, but the same was not filed along with the

written statement. However, the respondents – defendants filed

I.A.No.871 of 2022 in I.A.No.156 of 2020 to receive Will dated

18.01.2019.

22) The genuineness of the document has to be considered after

examining the evidence adduced by both parties as per the

procedure provided. Mere suspicion about the genuineness of Will

dated 18.01.2019 is not sufficient to prevent the respondents –

defendants from filing the same. Genuineness or otherwise of the

VS,J

crps_2580 and 2581_2023

16

Will sought to be marked will be decided after examination of the

witnesses. Further, the petitioners-plaintiffs will get an opportunity to

cross-examine the defendants with regard to the Will dated

18.01.2019 at the time of their examination.

23) As there is a recital about the Will dated 18.01.2019 in the

original pleading i.e. the written statement with regard to the said

Will, which is sought to be received by way of filing I.A.No.871 of

2022 in I.A.No.156 of 2020 in O.S.No.92 of 2019, there is no

hindrance to receive the same. But, in view of the findings of this

Court with regard to I.A.No.156 of 2020 in I.A.No.343 of 2019 in

O.S.No.92 of 2019 (subject matter of C.R.P.No.2580 of 2023), the

I.A.No.871 of 2022 filed in I.A.No.156 of 2020 to receive the Will

dated 18.01.2019 cannot be allowed by this Court. However, the

respondents – defendants are at liberty to file fresh interlocutory

application before the trial Court with a request to receive the Will

dated 18.01.2019.

24) Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition Nos.2580 and 2581 of

2023 are allowed setting aside the order dated 07.08.2023 passed

in I.A.No.156 of 2020 in I.A.No.343 of 2019 in O.S.No.92 of 2019

and in I.A.No.871 of 2022 in I.A.No.156 of 2020 in O.S.No.92 of

2019. However, the respondents – defendants are at liberty to file

fresh interlocutory application before the trial Court with a request to

receive the Will dated 18.01.2019, on such filing, the trial Court may

pass appropriate orders keeping in view the law laid down by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in Sugandhi (Dead) by L.Rs. and another Vs.

VS,J

crps_2580 and 2581_2023

17

P.Rajkumar represented by his Power Agent Imam Oli‖ (referred

supra) and the observations made hereinabove. No costs.

25) Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any,

shall stand closed. No costs.

______________________

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

08.01.2026

Ksp