IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4821 OF 2017 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 03.04.2017 passed in lA No.18/2013 in OS No.31/1997 on the file of Civil (Junior Division) Judge, Chintalapudi. Between: 1. Goli Satyanarayana Reddy (DIED) (Plaintiff) Goli Vimalavathi, W/o.Satyanarayana Reddy, aged about 55 years R/o.Errampalli Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District. Goli Venkateswara reddy, S/o late Satyanarayana Reddy, aged about 43 years R/o.Errampalli Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District. 2. 3. 4. Tumu Swarna Kumari, W/o.Sanjeeva Reddy, aged about 45 years R/o.Errampalli Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District. Duggi Aruna, W/o.Srinivasa Reddy, aged about 43 years R/o.Mutchanapalli Village, Vissannapet Mandal, Krishna District. 5. ...Petitioners AND SK.Nagur Saheb, S/o.Bikari Saheb, aged about 55 years R/o.errampalli Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District. ...Respondent i.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CRPMP. NO: 6279 OF 2017^ 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 direct the respondent not to alinate the property in an extent of Ac. 0.03 cents in RS No. 163/20 situated at Errampalli Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. S APPADHARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following; APHC010521142017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4821/2017 Between: Goli Satyanarayana Reddy (died) & 4 Ors and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Sk Nagur Saheb ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petltioner(S): 1.S APPADHARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. 2 The Court made the following order: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the order dated 03.04.2017 passed in I.A.No.18 of 2013 in O.S.No.31 of 1997 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District. The petitioners herein are the legal representatives of the 2. original plaintiff one Sri Goli Satyanarayana Reddy. He filed suit vide O.S.No.31 of 1997 for declaration and for mandatory injunction and to deliver the suit schedule property after demolition of the structure existing thereon. The said suit was contested by the respondents/defendants and eventually, the suit was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2004. The said judgment and decree was assailed by the respondents by filing appeal vide A.S.No.253 of 2004 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Eluru and the same was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2011, and it attained finality. It is the case of the petitioners that the suit filed by their father 3. was decree after full-fledged trial and on perusal of the judgment dated 25.10.2004, it is clear that the trial court elaborately discussed with regard to issue Nos.1 & 2 therein and declared that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and also entitled for vacant possession after 3 demolition of the structures in the plaint schedule property. As already noted supra the said judgment and decree dated 25.10.2004, was confirmed by the appellate court by judgment and decree dated 23.11.2011 in AS.No.253 of 2004, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Eluru. In spite of the same, the trial court did not include the relief of delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. As the petitioners are also entitled for delivery of possession, they filed application vide IA.No.18 of 2013, under Section 152 CPC, seeking to amend the decree in accordance with the judgment passed in OS.No.31 of 2013. The said application contested by the respondents and upon hearing the parties the trial court dismissed the same by order dated 03.04.2017, which is assailed in the present revision petition. was 4. Heard leaned counsel for the petitioners. 5. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the respondents. For proper appreciation of the case of the petitioners, the issues framed by the trial Court are extracted hereunder; 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration prayed for? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for vacant possession after demolition of structure therein plaint schedule land? 1. as w 4 3. Whether the defendant is entitled for specific performance of sale agreement dated 09.06.1982 against the plaintiff as prayed for? 4. To what relief? After hearing the parties, the Trial Court answered all the 7. issues in favour of the plaintiff, and decreed the suit. Further, the judgment of the Trial Court was also confirmed in the appeal. As already stated, the respondents did not file any second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court and it attained finality. The Trial Court, having answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff, dismissed the application seeking amendment of decree by the legal heirs of the original plaintiff, on the ground that the petitioners did not establish their locus standi to file the present application. On perusal of the impugned order, it is succinctly clear that 8. neither the respondents have raised objection with regard to locus-standi of the petitioners nor the Court has framed an issue to that effect. In the absence of any issue or discussion with regard to the same, the Trial Court ought not to have dismissed the application, seeking to amend the decree as per the judgment. It is nobody’s case before the trial Court that the petitioners are not the legal heirs of the original plaintiff nor any documentary proof was f 5 filed in that regard. Further, the trial Court having observed that the petitioners are entitled for delivery of possession of the suit schedule property, should have allowed the application, instead dismissed flimsy ground that, the petitioners have no locus-standi to file the present application. on In view of the above, the impugned order dated 03.04.2017, passed in I.A.No.18 of 2013 in O.S.No.31 of 1997, is set aside, and the Trial Court is directed to make necessary amendments in the decree as per the judgment, by incorporating that the petitioners entitled for delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. 9. are 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A VIJAVA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chintalapudi. (with records if any) One CC to Sri S. Appadhara Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. Three CD Copies To, 1. 2. 3. 4. PR sree f HIGH COURT DATED:21/02/2025 ORDER CRP.No.4821 of 2017 Of 5 2 8 MAR 2025 a Co ^ . Curreni secuon . ALLOWING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS