1 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.75 of 2025) APHC010014582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 75/2025 Between: Adari Lavanya and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Tankala Koteswara Rao ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: ORDER : Heard Sri K.M.R.Bala Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri Akula Krishna Sai Bhargav, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. M/s.Balajee Constructions, represented by its Managing Partner Sri TankalaKoteswara Rao, filed O.S.No.42 of 2017 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, against the 1st 2 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.75 of 2025) petitioner (sole defendant in O.S.No.42 of 2017). The suit was dismissed for default, by an order dated 28.03.2024. 3. The petitioner/plaintiff-Sri Tankala Koteswara Rao, filed I.A.No.156 of 2024 under Order 9 Rule 9 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908(in short ‘CPC’) seeking to set aside the default order and restore the suit to its original number for the purpose of trial. Notices were issued to the petitioners herein (2 in Nos.). 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the registration of I.A.No.156 of 2024 was not proper. He states that the suit was filed in the name of M/s. Balajee Constructions, represented by its Managing Partner, but the application has been filed in the name of Sri Tankala Koteswara Rao, i.e., the petitioner/plaintiff. He further submits that in the suit, there was only one defendant (the 1st petitioner), but in the I.A., the 2nd petitioner has also been shown as a defendant. 5. The grievance raised at this stage is only with respect to the numbering and registration of the application. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that I.A.No.156 of 2024 is still pending consideration before the Court concerned. 3 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.75 of 2025) 7. In view of the aforesaid submission, as I.A.No.156 of 2024 is still pending consideration, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India only against mere registration of the application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC, as the objections raised herein can be raised before the learned Court in I.A.No.156 of 2024. 8. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file an appropriate application before the Court concerned, raising objections to I.A.No.156 of 2024 on the grounds as raised herein. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date :21.01.2025. RPD. 4 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.75 of 2025) 411 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI (DISMISSED) CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 75 OF 2025 Date :21.01.2025 RPD.