APHC010393702025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [£] SATURDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS: 2121 OF 2025 AND 219/^ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2121 OF 9n9i;- OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by / 2023 (GR No.4765/2023) in on the file of the court of the Principal District Judge cum-Special Tribunal for Land Grabbing Act, At Srikakulam. returning of the unnumbered I.A.No. LGOP.No.414 of 2017 Between: 1. Suresh Kumar Panigrahi, S/o. Tirupathi Panigrahi, Years, residing at Block No.2, Bhuvaneswar, Odisha State. Hindu, Age 39 Enclave, Near Maharshi College, 2. Vignana Bharathi Charitable Trust, Represented by its Managing Trustee, Suresh Kumar Panigrahi, S/o Tirupathi Panigrahi, Hindu, Age 39 Years, residing at Block No.2, Enclave, Near Maharshi College, Bhuvaneswar, Odisha State. ...Petitioners/Petitioners/Respondent Nos. 1 &2 AND 1. Gruhalakshmi Finance, Srikakulam, Partner, Voona Sarveswararao, S/o. a firm rep. by its Managing late Satyanarayana, Age about 60 Years, Hindu, Srikakulam. 2. Voona Sarveswararao, S/o late Satyanarayana, Aged about 60 Years, Hindu. Business, R/o. Door No. 15-3-15, Near town hall, Srikakulam. ...Respondents/ Respondents/Petitioners Business, R/o. Door No. 15-3-15, Near town hall. 3. Kantu Ammayi, W/o. late Suribabu, Hindu Aged 61 Years, R/o. Kella Street, Door No.6-9/1A, Srikakulam town, Srikakulam. 4. Kantu Srinivasa Rao, S/o. late Suribabu, Hindu, Aged 36years, R/o. Kella Street, Door N0.6-9/IA, Srikakulam town, Srikakulam. 5. Paluri Adilakshmi, W/o. Venkata Lakshmi Prasada Rao, Hindu, Age 39 Village, Regidi Years, R/o. Door No.2-117A, Main Road, Vavilavalasa Amudalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. 6. Srikakulam Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner ...Respondents/Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 (Respondent No. 3 to 6 are not necessary parties to this CRP) Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate Counsel for the Respondents: - APHC010393682025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI ^VIL REVISION PETITION NQ: 2125 OF 7n9.A- Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution returning of the unnumbered LGOP.No.414 of 2017 of India, aggrieved by /2023 (GR No.4765/2023) in on the file of the court of the Principal District Judge- cum-Special Tribunal for Land Grabbing Act, At Srikakulam. I.A.No. Between: 1. Suresh Kumar Panigrahi, S/o. Tirupathi Panigrahi Years, residing at Block No.2 Bhuvaneswar, Odisha State. Hindu, Age 39 Enclave, Near Maharshi College, 2. Vignana Bharathi Charitable Trust, Represented by its Managing Trustee, Suresh Kumar Panigrahi, S/o Tirupathi Panigrahi, Hindu, Age 39 Years, residing at Block No.2 Enclave, Near Maharshi College Bhuvaneswar, Odisha State. ...Petitioners/Petitioners/ Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 AND 1. Gruhalakshmi Finance, Srikakulam, a firm rep. by its Managing Partner, Voona Sarveswararao, S/o. late Satyanarayana, Age about 60 Years, Hindu, Business, R/o. Door No. 15-3-15, Near town hall Srikakulam. 2. Voona Sarveswararao, S/o late Satyanarayana, Aged about 60 Years, Hindu, Business, R/o. Door No. 15-3-15, Near town hall, Srikakulam. ...Respondents/ Respondents/Petitioners 3. Kantu Ammayi, W/o. late Suribabu, Hindu, Aged 61 Years, R/o. Kella Street, Door No.6-9/1A, Srikakulam town, Srikakulam. 4. Kantu Srinivasa Rao, S/o. late Suribabu Hindu, Aged 36years, R/o. Kella Street, Door No.6-9/1A, Srikakulam town, Srikakulam. 5. Paluri Adilakshmi, W/o. Venkata Lakshmi Prasada Rao Years, R/o. Door No.2-117A, Main Road, Vavilavalasa Village Amudalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. 6. Srikakulam Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner Hindu, Age 39 Regidi ...Respondents/Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 (Respondent No. 3 to 6 are not necessary parties to this CRP) Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate Counsel for the Respondents: - The Court made the following Common Order: APHC010393702025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] SATURDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST . TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2121 and 2125 / 2025 C.R.P.No.2121 of 2025 Between: 1.SURESH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, S/0 TIRUPATHI PANIGRAHI, HINDU, AGE 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT BLOCK N0.2, ENCLAVE. NEAR MAHARSHI COLLEGE, BHUVANESWAR, ODISHA STATE. 2.VIGNANA BHARATHI CHARITABLE TRUST,, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, SURESH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, S/0 TIRUPATHI PANIGRAHI, HINDU, AGE 39 YEARS,. RESIDING AT BLOCK N0.2, ENCLAVE, NEAR ’ MAHARSHI COLLEGE, BHUVANESWAR. ODISHA STATE. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.GRUHALAKSHMI FINANCE, SRIKAKULAM, A FIRM REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. VOONA SARVESWARARAO, S/0 LATE SATYANARAYANA, AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS, HINDU, BUSINESS, R/0 DOOR NO. 15-3-15, NEAR TOWN HALL, SRIKAKULAM. 2.VOONA SARVESWARARAO, S/0 LATE SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, HINDU, BUSINESS, R/0. DOOR NO. 15-3-15, NEAR TOWN HALL, SRIKAKULAM. 3.KNATU AMMAYI, W/0. LATE SURIBABU, HINDU, AGED 61 YEARS, R/0. KELLA STREET, DOOR NO.6-9/ LA SRIKAKULAM TOWN, SRIKAKULAM. 4.KANTU SRINIVASA RAO, S/0. LATE SURIBABU* HINDU, AGED 36YEARS, REST DO. Tfl^^DISTRl^f' MANDAl! 6.SRIKAKULAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION COMMISSIONER REP. BY ITS ...RESPONDENT(S): ^:%3=.-s?s Counsel for the Petitioner(S); 1.V SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): Judge-cum- 1. C.R.P.No. 2125/202fi Between: ’'AGF^^<^YPaT^ S/0 TIRUPATHI PANIGRAHI AGE 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT BLOCK NO.2 MAHARSHI COLLEGE, BHUVANESWAR, 2.VIGNANA BHARATHI .CHARITABLE TRUST managing trustee, TIRUPATHI PANIGRAHI, BLOCK N0.2, r BHUVANESWAR, ODISHA STATE HINDU, ENCLAVE, NEAR ODISHA STATE. represented by ITS SURESH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, S/0 HINDU, AGE 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEAR MAHARSHI ENCLAVE, COLLEGE, ...PETITIONER(S) AND 2.VOONA SARVESWARARAO, S/0 UTE SATYANARAYANA, BY ITS S/0 LATE AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, HINDU, BUSINESS, NEAR TOWN HALL, SRIKAKULAM. 3.KNATU AMMAYI, W/0. LATE SURIBABU, HINDU, AGED 61 YEARS R/0. KELLA STREET, DOOR N0.6-9/LA, SRIKAKULAM. 4.KANTU SRINIVASA RAO, , S/0. LATE SURIBABU, HINDU, AGED 36YEARS, REST DO. 5.PALURI ADILAKSHMI,'W/0. VENKATA LAKSHMI PRASADA RAO, HINDU, AGE 39 YEARS, R/0. DOOR N0.2-117A, MAIN ROAD, VAVILAVALASA VILLAGE, REGIDI AMUDALAVALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 6.SRIKAKULAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER R/0. DOOR NO. 15-3-15, SRIKAKULAM TOWN, ...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 tobeg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by returning of the lA No /?023 (GR No 4765/2023) in LGOP.No.414/2017 on the file of the court of the Principal District Judge- cum-Special Tribunal for Land Grabbing Act, At Srikakulam, Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.VSUDHAKAR REDDY' Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER The respondents in LGOP No.414 of 2017 filed the above Civil Revision petitions. C.R.P.No.2121 of 2025 is filed complaining of the action of the office of District Judge -cum- Special Tribunal under Land Grabbing Act, Srikakulam Qistrict, in repeatedly returning interlocutory application (G.R.No.4765 of 2023, dated 10.09.2023) filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte 2. decree dated 24.02.2020 same before the Bench, despite passed in LOOP No.414 of 2017 request dated 04.12.2024. ex-parte decree dated 24.02.2020 without placing the 3. of days in filing petition passed in LOOP No.414 of 2017 to set aside the 4. Heard Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners. 5- Learned counsel for the filed the aforementioned i •dated 11.09.2023, Limitation Act, Order IX Rule 13 13.03.2024. Thereafter 18.06.2024 petitioners would submit that interlocutory applications vi the petitioners - vide G.R.No.4765 of 2023 13 CPC and Section under Order IX Rule 5 of the respectively. He would submit that the application filed under was initially returned on 19.09.2023 and represented on the application was returned on 22.03.2024 and 17.08.2024. The petitioners resubmitted the same on 24.04.2024, 14.08.2024 and 16.10.2024, respectively. The application again returned on 26.10.2024 was and resubmitted on 01.11.2024 matter before the Bench. However, the without being placed before Office to place the requesting the same was returned the Bench. The petitioners resubmitted application on 04.12.2024, Bench, despite which the requesting the office to place the it was again returned on 09.12.2024 matter before the 6. Learned counsel would submit that si petition filed under as returned, the petition filed under Section was also returned. Learned IX Rule 13 Order 5 of the Limitation Act counsel would submit that despite the applications before the Bench, the petitioners ta place the returning the applications. requests of the office has been Thus, as seen from the material, the office of the returned the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, Thereafter, the petitioners, without representing the applications before the trial Court, filed the above civil revision petitions on 29.07.2024. When the Court pointed out the delay in representation, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners will make a necessary application vis -a- vis, delay in representing the applications. Given the above facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the matter, C.R.P.No.2121 of 2025 is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioners to make a necessary application to represent the interlocutory application, by complying with the objections/retu rn endorsement dated 09.12.2024. Upon filing such an application, if the office is not satisfied, it shall place the interlocutory application before the learned Presiding Officer for passing a speaking order. 7. trial Court has on 09.12.2024. 8. C.R.P.No.2125 of 2025 is disposed of in terms of the order in C.R.P.No.2121 of 2025, giving liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate application representing the interlocutory application before the trial Court. 9. 10. Registry is directed to return the original interlocutory applications (G.R.) No.4765 of 2023, dated 11.09.2023 and 11.09.2024 respectively,filed along with the above Civil Revision Petitions, to the petitioners, enabling them to represent the same before the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1. The Principal District Judge-cum-Special Tribunal for Land Grabbing Act, At Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. //TRUE COPY// To, 2. One CC to Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. The Section Officer, CRP Section, High Court of A.P. 4. The Section Officer, New Filing Section, High Court of A.P. 5. Two CD Copies GPC sree high court DATED: 30/08/2025 COMMON ORDER CRP NOS. 2121 OF 2025 AND 2125 OF 2025 ${ 19 SEP 2025 )S1 ^ ^ '^ rrentSectiojixvy <2 disposing of these petitions without CIVIL REVISION COSTS