P. S. NARAYANA, J.

( 1 ) ONE of us (P. S. Narayana, J.) in C. R. P. No. 4976 of 2003 by an order dt. 20-10-2003 referred the following questions to be decided by an appropriate Division Bench in view of the general importance of the questions involved in the matter which are as hereunder: (1) Whether the Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arising out of tenancy proceedings also are governed by the ninety days period of limitation in view of the rules framed under article 227 of the Constitution of india and also the appellate side rules? (2) Whether the Judgment and decree in the prior litigation which has been carried upto second appeal operate as resjudicata relating to the validity of the Will especially in the light of the order passed in Review C. M. P. No. 14770 of 1998? (3) Whether the Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India be dismissed on the ground of laches? (4) Whether the appreciation of evidence relating to the validity of the Will in the Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be put on the same standard as appreciation of evidence in regular civil appeal and if so what are the limitations and parameters relating to the appreciation of evidence in Civil revision Petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India? likewise, by order dated 16-12-2003 in c. R. P. No. 3773 of 2003 in view of the fact that similar question in a slightly different context had been referred to the Division bench, the undermentioned question was referred to the Division Bench for making appropriate orders: "whether the Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the constitution of India as against interlocutory orders made by ordinary civil Courts which are not otherwise revisable in view of the amending provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, can be maintained beyond the ordinary period of limitation specified to such Revisions under section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure, hereinafter in short referred to as "code" under the provisions of the limitation Act, 1963 in view of the fact that "these Revisions are being preferred under Article 227 of the constitution of India?" except the common question, the question of limitation vis-a-vis the remedy under article 227 of the Constitution of India, nothing else is common in between C. R. P. No. 4976/2001 and C. R. P. No. 3773/2003. However, for the purpose of convenient discussion we propose to dispose of these matters by a Common Order. Facts in C. R. P. No. 4976/2001:

( 2 ) THE 3rd respondent is one Kurella satya Kesava Rao, the husband of Kurella kanakarathnam. The said Kurella kanakarathnam filed E. A. No. 387 of 1987 in e. P. No. 187 of 1987 in A. T. C. No. 45 of 1983 on the file of Special Officer-cum-Principal District Muncif, Amalapuram to bring her on record as the legal representative of one Gurram krishnavenamma on the strength of the Will said to have been executed by the said gurram Krishnavenamma on 17-1-1983. The present revision petitioners-judgment debtors had taken a stand disputing the said will. The learned Special Officer-cum- principal District Munsif, Amalapuram dismissed the above said execution application. Aggrieved by the same Kurella kanakaratnam preferred A. T. A. No. 9 of 1997 on the file of Appellate Authority-the district Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry and the said Kurella Kanakaratnam died pending the appeal. Therefore the said kurella Satya Kesava Rao was added as legal representative of the deceased Kurella kanakaratnam as per orders in I. A. No. 2117/99 dated 20-10-2000. The present revision is filed against the order in A. T. A. No. 9/97 on the file of the District Judge, rajahmundry dated 30-12-2000. Facts in C. R. P. No. 3773/2003 and C. C. No. 620/2003:

( 3 ) THE Revision Petitioner filed C. R. P. No. 693/2003 under Section 115 of the Code assailing the correctness of the order dated 3-1-2003 made in C. M. A. N

Click Here to Read the rest of this document