APHC010392322018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3087/2018 Between: Nakka Nagamani ...PETITIONER AND Singineedi Narayana Murthy And 7 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V V N NARAYANA RAO 2 The Court made the following order: The present revision petition is filed aggrieved by Order dated 06.02.2018 passed in I.A.(SR)No.2986 of 2017 in I.A.No.505 of 2014 in O.S.No.117 of 1997, on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed suit for declaration and partition against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 8 herein. A preliminary decree was passed on 22.02.2006 in the said suit. Thereafter, the 1st respondent/plaintiff filed an application vide IA.No.505 of 2014 seeking to pass final decree, in which, the petitioner/6th defendant and others were set exparte and the trial Court passed final decree on 30.11.2016, whereby and where under the 1st respondent/plaintiff was allotted an extent of Ac.0.29 cents in Sy.No.594/2 shown as part-I in commissioner’s plan. He was also allotted an extent of Ac.0.07 cents shown as part-II in the commissioner’s plan. Thereafter, the 1st respondent/plaintiff also filed Execution Petition, pursuant to which the share allotted to the plaintiff was delivered to him. At that juncture, the petitioner/6th defendant filed an application vide IA.(SR)No.2986 of 2017 seeking to condone the delay of 280 days in filing the 3 application to set aside the exparte final decree dated 30.11.2016. 3. On perusal of the material available on record, it is clear that the final decree proceedings were put to execution and in fact, the properties allotted to the 1st respondent/plaintiff were also delivered, and subsequently, the Execution Petition was also closed. Admittedly, the petitioner did not challenge the preliminary decree dated 22.02.2006, and the same attained finality. As noted supra, the preliminary decree was also merged into final decree, and thereafter, the properties allotted to the 1st respondent/plaintiff were delivered to him in execution proceedings. 4. On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking to condone the delay of 280 days in filing the set aside application, the petitioner/6th defendant did not give any reason except stating that his counsel returned the file asking him to engage another advocate to prefer appeal. As noted supra, the preliminary decree attained finality, as no appeal was filed. Instead of filing an appeal against the preliminary decree, the petitioner/6th defendant choose to file the present application to 4 set aside the final decree proceedings which is not maintainable in law, inasmuch as the final decree dated 30.11.2016, was also executed by delivering the properties to the 1st respondent. 5. In the absence of sufficient cause, the trial Court rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner/6th defendant, and there are no grounds to interfere with the said order. Accordingly the present Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR Dt.24.01.2025 DSB 5 88 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR CRP No.3087 of 2018 Date 24.01.2025 DSB