APHC010192452025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION N BETWEEN: Swarna Bhavani Charan Prasad, Kareti Nagalakshmi and Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CHILUKURI KARTHIK Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KAUSHIK KUMBHAJADALA The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 998/2025 Swarna Bhavani Charan Prasad, ...Petitioner AND Kareti Nagalakshmi and others ...Respondent(s) Counsel for the Petitioner: CHILUKURI KARTHIK Counsel for the Respondent(S): KAUSHIK KUMBHAJADALA The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3330] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO ...Petitioner ...Respondent(s) 2 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is filed assailing the docket order dated 25.02.2025 passed in I.A. No. 821 of 2019 in O.S. No. 434 of 2015 on the file of First Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole. 2. The suit filed by the respondent /plaintiff was dismissed for default on 19.08.2019. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff filed I.A. No. 821 of 2019 to set aside the default order dated 19.08.2019. 3. The defendant in the suit is revision petitioner herein has consented before the trial court unconditionally to set aside the default order dated 19.08.2019 and to restore the suit on to file which’s dismissed for default on 19.08.2019. On the consent given by the petitioner (defendant), the trial Court has set aside the default order and restored the suit onto file and referred the suit for conciliation but the conciliation efforts failed and the suit was returned to the Court for trial. As the conciliation failed, the defendant/ revision petitioner insisted to rehear the interlocutory application and to decide the same on merits and the said 3 request was rejected vide docket order dated 25.02.2025, which is assailed in the present Civil Revision Petition. 4. It is well settled law that a consent order is as binding upon the parties thereto as an order passed by invitum. It is not the pleading that the consent was made by counsel without the permission or knowledge of the petitioner or it has been vitiated as the consent was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, misunderstanding or mistake. Because the conciliation failed it cannot be set aside, as the consent was not vitiated by any law and it has binding force. A consent order in the present case has the binding force and it operates as estoppels. "An order by consent or default is as effective an estoppel between the parties,” as it is not the pleadings of the petitioner as discussed supra. Hence, there is no merit in this Civil Revision Petition and accordingly it is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 20.06.2025 Harin 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO 150 C.R.P.No. 998 OF 2025 Date: 20.06.2025 Harin