APHC010353582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1718/2025 Between: 1. M. LEELAVATHI,, W/O. M. SURENDRANATH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1/66, RAMANAPALLI VILLAGE, CHENNUR MANDAL, YSR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. CHOWDARY S FAYAZUDDIN, (DIED) 2. CHOWDARY S SABIR HUSSAIN, S/O. CHOWDARY S. RAHAMMATHULLA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O. RAHAMMATHULLA STREET, KADAPA CITY, YSR DISTRICT 3. CHOWDARY S SHABBIR HUSSAIN, S/O. CHOWDARY S. RAHAMMATHULLA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. Y.V. STREET, KADAPA CITY Y.S.R. DISTRICT 4. S SYEEDA, W/O. LATE C. FAYAZUDDIN AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. 5. S NIZAMUDDIN CHOWDARY, S/O. LATE C. FAYAZUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. 6. SHABEEN PARVAZ, D/O. LATE C. FAYAZUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. Page 2 of 4 7. T HUMARA, D/O. C. FAYAZUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 4 TO 7 ARE R/O. RAHAMATHULLA STREET, KADAPA CITY, Y.S.R. DISTRICT 8. M SURENDRANATH REDDY, (DIED) 9. M RAJITHA, D/O. LATE M. SURENDRANATH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1/66, RAMANAPALLIVILLAGE, CHENNURMANDAL, YSR DISTRICT 10. K KODANDA RAMI REDDY, (DIED) 11. K SIVA SANKAR REDDY, S/O. LATE K. KODANDA RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 12. K VIJAYA KUMAR REDDY, S/O. LATE K. KODANDA RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 11 AND 12 ARE R/O. UTUKURU VILLAGE, KADAPA CITY, Y.S.R. DISTRICT ...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 be pleased to above named Petitioner begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the Order dt.24-1-2025 in E.A.No.24/2023 in E.A.No.258/2017 in E.P.No.302/2015 in O.S.No.634/2011 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadapa IA 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 condone the delay of 23 days in filing the present Civil Revision Petition and pass IA NO: 2 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 further proceedings in E.P.No.302/2015 in O.S.No.634/2011 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadapa and pass s Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SODUM ANVESHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. K RAGHUNATHA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER This revision is filed against the order dated 24.01.2025 in E.A.No.24 of 2023 in E.A.No.258 of 2017 in E.P.No.302 of 2015 in O.S.No.634 of 2011 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadapa. 2. a) The respondents 1 to 3 filed the suit O.S.No.634 of 2011 against the 10th respondent seeking eviction. The said suit was decreed on 19.12.2012. The sole defendant filed appeal A.S.No.11 of 2013 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. The appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Pending the appeal, the sole defendant died and the respondents 11 and 12 herein are brought on record as legal representatives. b) After dismissal of the appeal, the decree holders filed E.P.No.302 of 2015. In the said E.P., the revision petitioner’s husband filed E.A.No.258 of 2017, claim petition. Pending the claim petition, after examination of claim petitioner, he died. The revision petitioner and her daughter, 9th respondent herein were brought on record. Page 4 of 4 c) In the said claim petition, the decree holders filed E.A.No.24 of 2023 under Section 151 of CPC to direct the revision petitioner to come and depose before the Court. The said E.A. was allowed on 24.01.2025. 3. The revision was initially listed on 18.07.2025. No interim stay was granted. Pending the revision, the claim petition E.A.No.258 of 2017 was dismissed on 07.05.2026. Since the claim petition itself was dismissed, cause in this revision does not survive for adjudication and the revision has now rendered infructuous. 4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is Dismissed as Infructuous. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD