APHC010022732026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

Tuesday, the Twenty Fourth day of March, Two Thousand and Twenty Six Present The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.132 of 2026 Between:

1. M.Neelakanta Reddy, S/o.Adinarayana Reddy, aged about 36 years, occupation : cultivation, R/o.D.No.3-21, Damavandlapalli, H/o.Kadiri-

Poolakunta, Nallacheruvu Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District.

...Petitioner / Petitioner in I.A.No.602 of 2025/ petitioner / plaintiff in O.S.No.07 of 2020 and

1. Shaik Ameena Bee, W/o.Hydervali, aged about 65 years, occupation :

cultivation, R/o.D.No.6-137, Gundluru Street, Madanapalle Town Chittoor District.

2. Shaik Raziya Banu, D/o.Hydervali, aged about 36 years, occupation :

Housewife, R/o.D.No.6-137, Gundluru Street, Madanapalle Town Chittoor District.

…Respondents / Respondents in I.A.No.602 of 2025 / Respondents /

Defendants in O.S.No.07 of 2020 Counsel for the petitioner:

1. Ayesha Azma.S.

Counsel for the respondents:

Nil The Court made the following order:

This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 15.12.2025 dismissing I.A.No.602 of 2025 filed under Section 151 C.P.C. to restore I.A.No.501 of 2025 filed to reopen evidence of the petitioner / plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.07 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri.

2. The petitioner filed the suit for specific performance of contract. After examination of P.Ws.1 to 3 on his behalf, the suit was adjourned to 20.03.2025 for further evidence, but the petitioner stated that he could not secure material witness in time and the trial Court closed his evidence and therefore, the petition in I.A.No.501 of 2025 was filed in September, 2025, in response to which counter was filed by the defendants opposing the petition stating that the plaintiff himself had reported to Court that there was no further evidence and accordingly evidence was closed, however, this petition was filed without disclosing the purpose to reopen and the witness whom to be examined. I.A.No.501 of 2025 was allowed on 28.10.2025 with a condition that the petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.1,000/- to the defendants by 04.11.2025 and produce P.W.4, failing which the petition stands dismissed and time would not be enlarged nor would the matter be adjourned in this regard. The petitioner paid costs as per the stipulation, but P.W.4 was not produced. Hence, the petition stood dismissed on 04.11.2025 consequent to the conditional order dated 28.10.2025.

3. Then, the petitioner filed I.A.No.602 of 2025 stating that P.W.4 had been admitted in hospital on 03.11.2025, by enclosing medical record and therefore, the absence of P.W.4 was due to unforeseen reasons and unintentional. The petition was opposed by filing the counter of the defendants stating that the suit was coming up for arguments and that the medical record was created for the purpose of filing the petition and that there are no tenable grounds to allow the petition which was filed just to drag on the proceedings.

4. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that the medical record discloses that P.W.4 was not admitted in the hospital as inpatient, but just visited the hospital on 03.11.2025 and he was advised to take general medicines like pantop and that the record further shows that some other normal medicines were prescribed to him on 04.11.2025 and therefore, it is incorrect to state that P.W.4 was admitted in the hospital as a reason for his absence before the Court. The trial Court further recorded that P.W.4 is not a crucial witness as he is neither the attestor nor the scribe of the agreement of sale / Ex.A1 and no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner even if I.A.No.501 of 2025 is not restored.

5. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed mainly contending that the trial Court ought to have considered that though the condition to