APHC010461822024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2528/2024 Between: 1. YARLAGADDA KRISHNA MURTHY,, S/O. SEETARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.54-20-2/3D, H.NO.30, 2ND LINE, SUBBARAO COLONY, NEXT TO BHARATHI NAGAR, 8TH ROAD, VIJAYAWADA-8, NTR DISTRICT (THE THEN KRISHNA DISTRICT) ...PETITIONER AND 1. NOOTHI VENKATA SUNITHA, W/O. SRINIVASA PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER AND BROTHER K.V.V. SIRISH KUMAR, RESIDING AT 30-20/3-15/1, GEETHAMANDIR STREET, CHUTUGUNTA, VIJAYAWADA.(D.HR) 2. YARLAGADDA SINDHU, REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER, YARLAGADDA KRISHNA MURTHY, S/O. SEETARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.54-20-2/3D, H.NO.30, 2ND LINE, SUBBARAO COLONY, NEXT TO BHARATHI NAGAR, 8TH ROAD, VIJYAWADA-8, NTR DISTRICT (THE THEN KRISHNA DISTRICT).(J.DR) ...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 2 be pleased to set-aside the order dated 16-10-2024 passed in EA NO. 105/2024 IN EA NO. 89/2024 IN EP NO. 101/2022 IN 0.S.N0.916 /2015on the file of the Learned VII ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA 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 dispense with the filing of certified copy of the order dated 16.10.2024 passed in EA NO. 105/2024 IN EA NO. 89/2024 IN EP NO. 101/2022 IN 0.S.N0.916 /2015 on the file of the Learned VIITH ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA in the above Civil Revision Petition 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in EP NO. 101/2022 IN O.S.NO.916/2015 on the file of the Learned VIITH ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KALEPU PRAVEEN KRISHNA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. RAVI KUMAR C The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Assailing the correctness and legality of the orders passed in E.A.No.105 of 2024 in E.A.No.89 of 2024 in E.P.No.101 of 2022 in O.S.No.916 of 2015 on the file of VII Additional Senior Judge, Vijayawada, dated 14.10.2024, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The facts that led to filing of the Civil Revision Petition are that the petitioner is the claim petitioner and the 1st respondent is the Decree Holder and the 2nd respondent is the Judgement Debtor. 3. The 1st respondent/decree holder filed a suit in OS No. 916 of 2015 for eviction and recovery of arrears of rents. The said suit has been decreed. To execute the said decree and judgment passed by the trial Court, she filed E.P.No.101 of 2022 on the file of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. In the said EP, the petitioner filed E.A.No.89 of 2024 under Order XXI Rule 58 (Claim petition). In the said claim petition, the 2nd respondent/Judgment Debtor was set ex parte. In those circumstances, he filed E.A.No. 105 of 2024 to set aside the ex parte Order and that it has been allowed by the Court below under its Order dated 14.10.2024. Assailing the same, the present CRP came to be filed by the claim petitioner. 4. Heard Sri K.Praveen Krishna Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 4 Memo proof of service shows that the notice sent to the 2nd respondent has been returned with an endorsement ‘not delivered door locked. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision submitted that the Court below erroneously allowed the E.A.No.105 of 2024 without giving any reasons. The Decree Holder did not plead properly the reasons for non appearance on the fateful day and as there was no representation, the Court below has rightly set the Judgment Debtor as ex parte. In the said circumstances, if the order in E.A.No.105 of 2024 is allowed, irreparable loss would be caused to the claim petitioner, accordingly, prayed to allow the revision. 6. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the petitioner has no locus to agitate this revision in view of the fact that his claim petition was dismissed and so far, the same was not questioned. The fact that the Judgment Debtor and the claim petitioner were hand in glove as such, the JDR did not appear before this Court. The petitioner has not raised any valid grounds warranting interference. The Court below has rightly allowed the application. The CRP is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the revision. 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5 8. The fact of dismissing the petitioner’s E.A. on 25.10.2024 and the same was not questioned was not denied by the petitioner. When the petitioner’s claim petition was dismissed, this Court is unable to understand what right would be accrued to him to pursue this Civil Revision Petition. Even otherwise, the reason stated by the Judgment Debtor before the Court below while asking to set aside the ex parte order was that the counsel has recorded wrong date, as such, there was no representation on his behalf before the Court below in E.A.No.89 of 2025. The Court below, by taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, rightly allowed the said E.A.No.105 of 2024. The petitioner has not made out any valid grounds warranting interference of this Court, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 08th April, 2026 RKS