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 call for the entire record from the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam in I.A.No.546 of 2019 in A.S.No.90 of 2018 along with original plaint, written statement and issues. ii) To set-aside the order dated 28.11.2023 passed in I.A.No.546 of 2019 in A.S.No.90 of 2018 by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam while allowing I.A.No.546 of 2019 in A.S.No.90 of 2018 directing the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam to frame additional issue as claimed and iii) To issue

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

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 stay of all further proceedings in A.S.No.90 of 2018 on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, during pendency of the civil revision petition, while granting ad-interim stay of all further proceedings and pass s

IA NO: 2 OF 2024

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 fix an early date for hearing the above C.R.P.No.789/2024 and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. M.V.RAMANA KUMARI

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. AYESHA AZMA S

The Court made the following:

RESERVED ON 16.03.2026

PRONOUNCED ON 29.04.2026

UPLOADED ON 29.04.2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 28.11.2023 passed in I.A.No.546 of 2019 in A.S.No.90 of 2018 by the learned IX Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam.

The petitioner is the appellant and respondent is the respondent in A.S.No.90 of 2018, preferred against the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.30 of 2011, wherein the petitioner is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff.

The facts that led to filing of this Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that the petitioner filed petition vide I.A.No.546 of 2019 in the appeal filed by him under Order XLI, Rule-25 CPC with a prayer to frame additional issues in the appeal, contending that the respondent filed the suit for declaration and recovery of possession basing on forged will dated 24.07.1997 said to have been executed by V.Tripura Sundari, who is vendor of the petitioner, and the said suit is contested by the defendant inter alia on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation since filed beyond 12 years, however the trial Court without framing proper issues and on erroneous appreciation of facts decreed the suit. The respondent resisted the petition by filing counter contending that all the pleas regarding additional issues were already argued and decided by the trial Court and hence there is no need for framing any additional issues. That the petitioner, who did not make any effort before the trial Court for getting additional issues framed, since all his contentions were negatived by the trial court, came forward with this petition only to drag on the matter. Upon considering the submissions and contents of the pleadings, the learned appellate Judge dismissed the petition. The said dismissal order has been assailed in this Civil Revision Petition.

Heard Ms.M.Nikitha, learned counsel, representing M.V.RamanaKumari, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms.Ayesha Azma, learned counsel for respondent.

Ms.M.Nikitha, learned counsel for petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed before the appellate Court and grounds of Civil Revision Petition would contend that despite raising specific plea regarding limitation, the trial court did not frame an issue as to the bar of claim by limitation and despite bringing it to the notice of the appellate court by way of filing of the petition, the learned appellate Judge erroneously dismissed