APHC010396322025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2060/2025 Between: 1. DARLA APPALACHARI,, S/O RAJARAO, AGED 50 YEARS, CARPENTAR- BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF RAMA MANDIRAM VEEDHI, BALIGHATTAM VILLAGE, BALIGHATTAM POST. NOW NARSIPATNAM MUNICIPALITY AND MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KONALA DHARMANANDA REDDY, S/O RAMAREDDY AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KUTHUKULURU VILLAGE AND POST ANAPARTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT 2. PADALA SIVA SATHI REDDY, S/O RAMAREDDY, AGED 30 YEARS. CULTIVATION, PEDAPARTHI, ANAPARTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM 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 topleased to allow the revision and Set aside the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam in E.A.No.64 of 2024 in E.A.No.8 of 2021 in E.P.No.20 of 2017 in O.S.No.504 of 2014 and to Grant the petitioner a period of Five (5) months to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the property to the Auction Purchaser IA NO: 1 OF 2025 2 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 pleased to Condone the delay in filing of 244 days in preferring CRP against the Order dt. 30-08-2024 of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, narsipatnam, in EA No. 64 of 2024 in EP No. 20 of 2017 in OS.No. 504 of 2014, enabling the petitioner to contest the CRP on merits 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 pleased to dispense with filing of the original certified copy of E.A.No.64 of 2024 in E.A.No.8 of 2021 in E.P.No.20 of 2017 in O.S.No.504 of 2014 passed by the of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam, before this Hon’ble Court IA NO: 3 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 pleased to Stay all further proceedings in E.A.No.64 of 2024 in E.A.No.8 of 2021 in E.P.No.20 of 2017 in O.S.No.504 of 2014 passed by the of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam and to Grant the petitioner a period of Five (5) months to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the property to the Auction Purchaser Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NANILU NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 3 The Court made the following Order: The 2nd respondent, had purchased a property, in the possession of the petitioner, in a Court auction and had sought delivery of possession. This application for delivery of possession, in E.A.No.8 of 2021 in E.P.No.20 of 2017 in O.S.No.504 of 2014, before the Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam, could not be executed as the Amin, who had gone to the property, to take up eviction of the petitioner and his family, had returned the warrant with the noting that the wife of the petitioner and her family members had resisted, the attempts of the Amin, and that police protection was necessary for evicting the petitioner. 2. The respondents thereupon had filed E.A.No.64 of 2024 in E.A.No.8 of 2021 in E.P.No.20 of 2017 in O.S.No.504 of 2014, for police protection. The Executing Court, by an Order dated 30.08.2024, had granted such police protection. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by this Order has approached this Court on 30.07.2025. The case of the petitioner is that it is residential property in which his family along with senior members of the family are residing and the sudden eviction of his family from the scheduled property would cause irreparable loss and damage to the petitioner and his family members. The petitioner would also contend that the Executing Court could not have issued an Order of police protection in as much as the petitioner should have been given adequate time to vacate the said house. 4. The Order of police protection was granted on 30.08.2024. The petitioner approached this Court one year after the said Order had been passed. The petitioner now requires a further time of three months (the prayer states five months) for vacating the scheduled property. 5. This Court does not find any merit in the said application in as much as the petitioner had an entire year to make alternative arrangements 4 and no lenience can be given for persons who sleep over their rights and seeking an extension of time, though the 2nd respondent is the lawful purchase of the property. 6. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. BSM 5 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Civil Revision Petition No.2060 of 2025 04-09-2025 BSM