IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 1127 OF 2025 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 allow this CRP by setting aside the Docket order dated 24- 02-2025 passed in E.A.No.02 of 2025in E.P.No.06 of 2019 in OS.No.46 of 2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur. Between: M. Ravi Sankar Reddy, S/o Late M. Narasimha Reddy Hindu, Business, aged 43 years, Opp New Edga, Near Sangameswar Circle Atmakur, Nandyal district. ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/JDr/DEFENDANT AND Tellapuri Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. T. Subba Reddy, Business, Age 46 years, R/o. Gowripeta, Bhethamcherla village and mandal Nandyal district (erst while Kurnool District), A.P. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/DHr/PLAINTIFF 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.06 of 2019 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur pending disposal of the above CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. NITESH Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010174112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 050 [3311] IV Friday, the Ninth Day of May Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 1127 of 2025 Between: M. Ravi Sankar Reddy ...Petitioner and ...Respondent Tellapuri Bhaskar Reddy Counsel for the petitioner: I.V.Nitesh Counsel for the respondent: Nil The Court made the following Order: This petition is filed under Section 117 of C.P.C. against the docket order dated 24.02.2025 in E.A. No.2 of 2025 in E.P. No.6 of 2019 in O.S. No.46 of 2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Atmakur, filed by the D.Hr. to permit to amend the petition to sell the undivided 1/3^"' share of the J.Dr. in the E.P. schedule property. After the D.Hr. filed the execution petition, the mother of the J.Dr. filed E.A. No.36 of 2022, claiming 1/3'"' share in the E.P. schedule property. After due enquiry, the execution Court allowed the petition on 16.12.2024 and decided that the J.Dr. has only 1/3 undivided share in the E.P. schedule property. Therefore, the D.Hr. 02. rd 2 C.R.P.No.ll27of2025 filed E.A. No.2 of 2025, to amend the E.P. schedule property, to sell only 1/3'^'^ undivided share of J.Dr. in the E.P. schedule property. Notice was issued to the respondents. Thereafter, the claimant in the E.A. No.36 of 2022, filed a memo along with a plan that she has no objection to proceed as per the plan. On the other hand, the D.Hr. filed objections stating that the proposed land for sale is barren land having no facility of road, well or irrigation facility and does not fetch good amount in sale and thereby, the D.Hr. would be put to loss. 03. However, the execution Court allowed the petition in view of the order in E.A No.36 of 2022. Aggrieved by the order, this petition was filed by the J.Dr. 04. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that share of the J.Dr. with specific 05. rd without demarcating 1/3 boundaries by partition, by metes and bounds, the question of amending the E.P. schedule does not arise and that the execution Court erred in allowing the amendment petition. The learned counsel further submitted that the provision of law i.e.. Order XXI, Rule 72 C.P.C. mentioned by the D.Hr. in the petition does not deal with amendment of the E.P. schedule property and therefore the order is illegal. 06. In fact, the J.Dr. did not file any counter to the petition. As per Order XXI, Rule 64 C.P.C. an execution Court has to put to sale ‘such portion of the property of the J.Dr. as may be seen necessary to satisfy the decree. When the same Court held that he 07. C.R.P.No.1127 of 2025 3 has only 1/3'^^ undivided share in the E.P. schedule property, the execution Court cannot put the entire E.P. schedule property for sale. Law does not prohibit undivided share being sold. Whenever, an undivided share is to be sold, extent of the undivided share out of the whole property shall be indicated. Since the E.P. schedule property originally filed indicates boundaries and extent of the whole property and whereas, now the sale is limited to the undivided 1/3'’^ share of it, the same shall be indicated in the auction notice. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in amending and showing the portion of the property that can be put up for sale to satisfy the amount mentioned in the execution petition. Though it is erroneous to mention Order XXI, Rule 74 C.P.C. for amendment, it is a settled law that so long as relief sought has foundation in law error in mentioning the provision of law does not debar grant of the relief. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the order impugned in the revision petition. 08. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the J.Dr. is at liberty to raise any other objection legally tenable before the execution Court. There shall be no order as to costs. 09. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand Sd/- P. VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR closed. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Nandyal District. One CC to Sri V.Nitesh, Advocate [OPUC] Three CD Copies. 2. 3. Pmg HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 ORDER CRP.No.1127 of 2025 12 JUN 7m \ ^ a^ . Cunrvni oecuon ^ DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS