KOTA SAHITYA v. DR. BALABOLU RAMESH
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Bench: R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Andhra Pradesh judgment dated 2025-03-13. KOTA SAHITYA v. DR. BALABOLU RAMESH. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH /O TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE o I PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 642 of 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the common order passed in I. A. No. 144 of 2021 in O. S. No. 504 of 2011, dated 14. 10. 2024 on the File of the Hon’ble XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. Between: Kota Sahitya, S/o. Kota Mehar Kumar, Hindu, aged about 25 years. Occupation Student, R/at Plot No. 10, Visakha ‘A’ colony, Srikakulam Town and District. (Amended as per orders in IA. 557/2023 dated 25. 06. 2024). (Rep. by GPA Holder Kota Mehar Kumar) ... PETITIONER/ PETITIONER/DEFENDANT AND 1. Dr. Balaboiu Ramesh, S/o. late B. Vasudeva Rao, Occ: Doctor, Hindu, aged 54 years. Resident of Flat No. 6, Sarojini Courts, Ramajogipeta, Visakhapatnam- 530 016. 2. Smt. Vishnumolakala Sailaja, D/o. late B. Vasudeva Rao, W/o. V.
R. S. Venkateswara Rao, Occ: House Wife, Hindu, aged 52 years. Resident of 3-22/4, Road No. 11, Venkateswara Colony, Saroornagar, Hyderabad-500 035. ? *- 3. Smt. Ijjapureddy Manjula, D/o. late B. Vasudeva Rao, W/o. I. Sai Prasad, r Occ; House wife, aged 50 years. Resident of 50-50-37/6, Flat No. 202, Jasmine Villa Apartments, B. S. Layout, Visakhapatnam- 530 013. ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS 4. Savvana Radharamanamma, W/o. late Krishna Kesava Rao (Died), Hindu, aged 78 years. House wife, Resident of 9-7-79, Gudiveedhi, Srikakulam Town and District- 532001. 5. Smt. Kesharapu Nalini, W/o. K. Prakash Rao, Hindu, aged 54 years. House wife. Resident of Flat No. 203, Sri Surya Apartments, Kullappa Colony, 1®* cross Jeevan Bheemaa Nagar, Bangalore-560 017. 6. Koppula Nanda Kumar, S/o. late Krishna Rao, Hindu, aged 53 years, Occ; Agriculture, Resident of H. No. 558, Chandramanipeta, Gate Bazaar, Berhampur, Ganjam District, Orissa- 760 001. 7. Koppula Naresh Kumar, S/o.
late Krishna Rao, Hindu, aged 50 years, Occ; Service, Resident of H. No. 558, Chandramanipeta, Gate Bazaar, Berhampur, Ganjam District, Orissa- 760 001. 8. Smt. Ganni Naveena, D/o. late K. Krishna Rao, Hindu, aged 47 years, Occ; House wife. Resident of Flat No. 6, Godavari Apartments, H. No. 2- 1-494, 1®* Floor, 7*^ lane. Near Sankaramatam, Nallakunta, Hyderabad- 500 044. 9. Koppula Lakshmana Rao, S/o. late K. Krishna Rao, Hindu, aged 47 years, Occ; Advocate, Resident of H. No. 558, Chandramanipeta, Gate Bazar, Verhampur, Ganjam District, Orissa -760 001. 10. Kota Rajani, W/o. Kota Mehar Kumar, Hindu, aged 49 years, Occ; Business, Residing at No. 160 Dolly Drive, Worcester M. A. 26043575, USA. 11. Kota Mehar Kumar, S/o. Kota Ramachandra Rao, Hindu, aged 49 years, Occ: Business, Residing at D. No. 49-34-24/A, N. G. Os Colony, 0pp. Saibaba Temple, Akkayyapalem Post, Visakhapatnam. 12. Savanna Kotes\A/ara Rao, S/o.
late Savvanna Krishna Kesava Rao, aged 62 years, Occ: Retired Bank Employee, R/o. Plot Nos. 15 and 16, Friends Colony, Behind LML Show-room, Pedapadu Road, Srikakulam- 532 001. 13. Smt. Chettu Indiramma, W/o. Chettu Ramakrishna, aged 58 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. D. No. 49-52-7, Shanthipuram, Visakhapatnam- 530 016. 14. ljjapureddy Sagara Lakshmi, W/o. I. Sudhakar Rao, aged 48 years, Occ: House wife, R/o 53-2-21, Flat No. S-1, Rajarajeswari Residency, Raja Veedhi, Near Fish Market, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam- 530 016. 15. Savvana Ravi Kumar, S/o. late Savvana Krishna Kesava Rao, aged 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o. D. No. 49-26-54, Madhuranagar, Visakhapatnam-530 016. (Respondents 12 to 15 are added in trail Court as per order in I. A. No. /2017 dated 17. 10. 2017) (Respondent No. 11 not necessary party in the CRP) ...
RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS lA 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 stay all the further proceedings in O. S. No. 504 of 2011 on the file of the Hon’ble XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K S MURTHY SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF SRI PONNADA SREE WAS Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : SMT T V SRI DEVI Counsel for Respondent Nos. 4 to 15 : NONE APPEARED The Court made the following ORDER : F APHC010103492025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3206] (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 642/2025 Between: ... PETITIONER Kota Sahitya AND Dr Balabolu Ramesh and Others ... RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.
PONNADASREE VYAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. TVSRI DEVI The Court made the following order: XI Additional O. S. No. 504 of 2011 has been filed before the Learned suit schedule property. The District Judge, Visakhapatnam, for partition of the in the suit, had filed 9'^ defendant, who appears to be the main defendant Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. I. A. No. 144 of 2021, for rejection of the plaint under Against this order of This application came to be dismissed on 14. 10. 2024. dismissal, the 9'^ defendant in the suit has filed the present Civil Revision Petition. / C. R. P. No. 642 of 2025 2. The case of the petitioner, before the Trial Court, without going into the details of the claim, is that similar suits had been filed earlier by some of the defendants and other family members, which came to be dismissed and such orders of dismissal would amount to res judicata. The petitioner also took the plea that the suit is barred by limitation.
However, no details of how the suit is barred by limitation seem to have been set out in the application. 3. The Trial Court took the view that the principle of res judicata would not be applicable as the earlier suits, cited by the petitioner, do not relate to identical property and also on the ground that there were certain variations in the facts as well as the issues which arose in the earlier suits as opposed to the present suit. The Trial Court has also taken the view that the pleadings in the plaint do not make out any case for limitation to be cited as a ground for rejection of plaint. 4. for Sri K. S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing Sri Ponnada Sree Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner herein, would contend that the orders passed in the earlier rounds and more specifically, the Judgment in O. S. No. 236 of 2009, that the said suit was barred by res judicata, on account of earlier litigation between the same parties, would apply in the present case also.
He would submit that in such circumstances, the order of the Trial Court is clearly incorrect and requires to be set aside. 5. Smt. T. V. Sri Devi, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent would^submit that the question of res judicata had been raised before the Trial RRRJ f: % C. R. P. No. 642of2025 of 2017, for framing a Court, in the very same case, by way of l,A. No. 436 This application came to preliminary issue of res judicata in the present suit. before this Court. be dismissed Thereupon, C. R. P. No. 2033 of 2018 was filed Revision Petition, by way A learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the took the view that the of order, dated 19. 01. 2023. The Learned Single Judge attracted, should not have finding of the Trial Court that res judicata is not was only for framing been given as the application before the Trial Court Judge had further res judicata as a preliminary issue.
The Learned Single of the issues as it cannot directed the Trial Court to frame res judicata as one of Order XIV Rule 2 be decided as a preliminary issue within the parameters of CPC. of 6. The consequence of this order would be that the issue the matter is completed res judicata can only be taken up after a full trial in of whether the and thereupon arguments can be advanced on the question suit is barred by res judicata or not. 7. In the circumstances, I. A. No. 144 of 2021 was not maintainable and should have been dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the non-consideration of orders of this Court in C. R. P. No. 2033 of 2018 preclude the trial. the issue of res judicata before the completion of is a mixed 8. On the question of limitation, the issue of limitation after trial had been question of fact and law, which can only be taken up completed. C. R. P. No. 642of2025 is disposed of, 9.
In the circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition to be decided in the main by holding that the principle of res judicata remains dated 19. 01. 2023 in suit, in accordance with the directions of this Court, the Trial Court had held C. R. P. No. 2033 of 2018. On the question of limitation, by the petitioner on the basis that the case of limitation has not been nnade out open to the petitioners to of the statements in the plaint. This would leave it make out such a case in the course of trial. 2011, it would be 10. In view of the fact that the suits are of the year of the suits, within a period appropriate to also direct the Trial Court to dispose order. There shall be no of four (04) months from the date of receipt of this order as to costs. shall stand closed. As a sequel pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, SD/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// C SECTION OFFICER To 1. The XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2.
One CC to Sri Ponnada Sree Vyas, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Smt T V Sri Devi, Advocate [OPUC] Pradesh at 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Amaravathi 5. Three CD Copies TK TAC HIGH COURT DATED: 13/03/2025 ORDER CRP. No. 642 of 2025 frof ANOfJgJ 5 2 s 20/5 ^ Current Section ^ ^ DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION
Source: High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.