APHC010382082025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1852/2025 Between: 1. KILARI RAVI, S/O. KILARI SRINIVASULU NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 10-75, KRANTHI NAGAR, JEEVAKONA, TIRUPATI URBAN MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KILARI SIVA PRASAD, S/o. K. Doraswamy Naidu, aged about 53 years, R/o. Pichatur Road, Sri Kalahasthi Town, Tirupati District ...RESPONDENT 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 tomay be pleased to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the Order dated 27.06.2025 passed in E.A. No. 252 of 2024 in E.P. No. 121 of 2021 in O.S. No. 16 of 2014 on the file of the V Additional District Judge Tirupati and pass such 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 may be pleased to suspend the operation of order dated 27.06.2025 passed in E.A. No. 252 of 2024 in E.P. No. 121 of 2021 in O.S. No. 16 of 2014 on the file of the V Additional District Judge Tirupati pending disposal of the above CRP and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KANDERI CHETHAN Counsel for the Respondent: 1. P SAI SURYA TEJA 2 The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This revision was filed against the order in E.A. No.252 of 2024 in E.P. No.121 of 2021 in O.S. No.16 of 2014 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Tirupati dated 27.06.2025. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this order was passed by the incharge court i.e., the IV Additional District Judge’s Court, Tirupati for the V Additional District Judge’s Court, Tirupati at that time. The respondent also has not filed any counter for the E.A. No.252 of 2024. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the incharge IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati dated 27.06.2025 is not maintainable under law as there is no protection order given in the I.P. No.16 of 2024 for the judgment debtor/ respondent herein. As such E.P. proceedings should have been proceeded with. Without considering the rule position, the above said order was passed. The learned counsel for the respondent/ judgment debtor also relied upon the decisions in Jolly George Varghese and another v. The Bank of Cochin1 and Beeram Guru Prasad v. Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Manager, P.Umamaheshwara Rao and others2. 1 (1980) 2 SCC 360 2 (2019) 6 ALT 9 = (2019) 6 ALD 7 3 4. Any how, as it is only the docket order of the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati as incharge of V Additional District Judge, Tirupati dated 27.06.2025, the same is set aside enabling the regular court to proceed with the matter after hearing both the parties concerned giving due opportunity and fresh orders shall be passed on merits strictly in accordance with law in the above said E.A. 5. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN 14.08.2025 NNN