1 APHC010127062025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 681, 770 & 1007/2025 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 770/2025 Between: Kosuru Poorna Chandra Rao ...PETITIONER AND Botcha Govardhini Lakshmi Sushmitha ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A S C BOSE Counsel for the Respondent: 1. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 681/2025 Between: Sri Kosuru Poorna Chandra Rao, ...PETITIONER AND Smt Botchagovardhini Lakshmi Sushmitha ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A S C BOSE Counsel for the Respondent: 1. 2 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1007/2025 Between: Sri Kosuru Poorna Chandra Rao ...PETITIONER AND Smt Botcha Govardhini Lakshmi Sushmitha ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A S C BOSE Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following common order: The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.1 of 2018 against the respondent herein, before the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 03.12.2026. The said suit was decreed on 27.04.2018 after the respondent had been set ex parte. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed E.P.No.93 of 2019 for completion of the formalities. The bailiff of the Court, had executed and registered the deed of sale in favour of the petitioner as the respondent did not answer any of the notices sent to her. 3. It may also be noted that the petitioner had been represented by his mother, acting as G.P.A, throughout the suit. A perusal of the facts, as recorded by the trial Court as well as the pleadings before the trial Court would show that the petitioner was in possession of the suit schedule 3 property, during the course of the suit itself and had given the suit schedule property as his address, in the suit. 4. The petitioner moved three Execution Applications in W.P.No.93 of 2019, essentially stating that he is not in possession of the suit schedule property and that he should be put in possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioner, in the course of the pleadings, has stated that his mother, who was his G.P.A and his family members had pushed him out of the property. The petitioner, sought recovery of possession on this ground. 5. The trial Court after considering the aforesaid three applications for grant of police aid, power to the bailiff to break open the lock and for redelivery of possession and after recording the fact that the petitioner appears to have been dispossessed from the house by his family members had refused to intervene and had dismissed all the applications by an order, dated 11.02.2025. 6. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of these Civil Revision Petitions. 7. Heard Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. The petitioner was in possession of the suit schedule property even before the pendency of the suit. The petitioner had initially sought execution of a deed of sale in his favour and the question of delivery of possession had not been raised at that stage. The petitioner had now moved 4 for redelivery of possession on the ground that he has been pushed out of the house after the deed of sale had been executed in his favour. 9. The cause of action for the petitioner, in such circumstances, would be outside the scope of O.S.No.1 of 2018 and E.P.No.93 of 2019. In such circumstances, the invocation of the powers of the Court, to assist the petitioner to get back possession of the house, would be outside the scope of these proceedings. 10. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the trial Court and accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. [ As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J RJS 5 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 681, 770 & 1007/2025 25.04.2025 RJS