\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 649 OF 2025 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 to call for the entire records pertaining to CFR 827 OF 2024 IN OS OF 2024 (unnumbered) on file of the Principal Civil Judge [Jr. Division] Ponnur, and quash and set aside the order dated December,2024 passed in CFRNo.827 of 2024 2024(Unnumbered) on the file of the Principal Civil Judge[Jr. Division] Ponnur, and direct the Principal Civil Judge [Jr. Division] forthwith number the suit in the interest of justice as otherwise the Petitioner/Plaintiff would be put to great irreparable loss and injury. Between: th 12 in OSNo. Of Ponnur to Chinnam Sudhakara Babu, S/o Late Chinnam Venkata Ratnam, Aged 55 Years, Occ Advocate, R/o Flat No 104, Sai Anusha Lakshmi Heights, Paparayudu Nagar, Hyderabad-500072 ...PETITIONER AND Pamula Narayana Rao, S/o Late Dayanandam, Aged about 66 years. Cultivation, R/o Bodipalem Village, Kakumanu Mandal, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in E.P. 26 of 2022 in O.S.No. 102 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior \ ' Division), Ponnur, Guntur District pending disposal of Civil Revision Petition Counsel for the Petitioner :Ms. T V Sri Devi Counsel for the Respondent: None Appeared The Court made the following Order: APHC010017442025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 7.1 [3209] B FRIDAY. THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 649 OF 2025 Between: Chinnam Sudhakara Babu ...PETITIONER(S) AND Pamula Narayana Rao Counsel for the Petitioner(S): I.Mrs.T.V.Sridevi Counsel for the Respondent: ...RESPONDENT 1.- 2 The Court made the following ORDER: The present Revision Petition is filed against the order dated of 2024, on the file 02.12.2024 passed in CFR No.827 of 2024 in O.S.No. of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur. The petitioner herein presented a plaint vide above CFR, seeking inter alia, cancellation of the decree and judgment dated 29.07.2022 passed in 2. O.S.NO. 102 of 2020, on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and his men etc., from interfering in any manner with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff. Perused the 3. material including the record received from the Trial Court pursuant to the direction dated 17.02.2025. Notice to the respondent not necessary. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submitted that the 4. petitioner instituted a suit setting out the facts and circumstances in the pliant and presented the same vide CFR No.827 of 2024 on 01.07.2024. She submits that the said CFR was returned on the same day with an office objection as to the maintainability of the suit. She submits that on 08.07.2024 the said CFR was resubmitted with a detailed explanation with regard to maintainability of the suit along with a copy of the order dated 15.11.2022 in CRP No.2198 of 2022, on which reliance was placed. The learned counsel submits that subsequently the matter was posted to 15.07.2024for hearing on office objections, from the said date to 28.08.2024, thereafter to 30.09.2024. 3 She submits that on 30.09.2024 written arguments were filed on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff and the matter was directed to be called on 14.10.2024 for hearing. She submits that on 14.10.2024, the matter was not taken up for hearing and as is seen from the docket proceedings dated 14.10.2024 it was posted to 28.10.2024 for consideration. She submits that the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff appearing in the Trial Court were not heard on 14.10.2024, much less on 28.10.2024 and surprisingly the order impugned came to be passed on 02.12.2024 as if the matter as heard on 14.10.2024. She submits that either on 14.10.2024 or on 28.10.2024 the matter was not reserved for orders and in such circumstances, the impugned order without hearing the counsel for the petitioner is not sustainable in law. She also contends that even otherwise also the order under challenge is liable to be set aside as the learned trial Judge failed to take into consideration the detailed written arguments filed on 30.09.2024 and the decision in CRP No.2198 of 2022. Making the said submissions, learned counsel seeks to allow the Revision Petition. On an appreciation of the submissions made, the point that arises for determination is “Whether the order under challenge is liable to be set aside in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in the facts and circumstances of the case?” At the outset, it may be relevant to note that there is no dispute and it is clear from the record that the plaint presented by the petitioner herein was returned with office objection on 01.07.2024 and the same was resubmitted on 5. 6. 4 08.07.2024. From the docket proceedings filed along with the Revision Petition it is discernible that the matter was being adjourned from time to time for hearing. On 30.09.2024, the learned Trial Judge directed the matter to be called on 14.10.2024 for hearing and the docket proceedings would further go to show that on 30.09.2024 written arguments were filed. As per subsequent endorsement dated 14.10.2024, the matter was directed to be called on 28.10.2024 “for consideration”. From the docket proceedings it is not clear as to whether the matter was heard on 14.10.2024 and as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner there is no endorsement “heard or reserved for orders”. Be that as it may. 7. Flowever, from a reading of the impugned order, it would appear as if on 14.10.2024 when the matter was coming up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner was present. But, if the matter was heard on 14.10.2024 and orders are reserved, the necessity to call the matter on 28.10.2024 “for consideration” may not arise. There appears to be some ambiguity in this regard. That apart, except mentioning that the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff was perused, there is no discussion with regard to the decision in CRP No.2198 of 2022, on which reliance was placed. The learned Judge, though not expected to deal in detail with the written arguments, ought to have taken care at least to go through the said decision and discuss the applicability or otherwise of the same, to the facts and circumstances of the case. It appears as though the learned Trial Judge was in a hurry to dispose of the matter without examining the same in a right 5 Such a perspective and affording an adequate opportunity of hearing, disposal of the matter, in the considered opinion of this court, amounts to exercise of jurisdiction vested in the Trial Court in an erroneous manner and warrants interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the point is answered. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the order under challenge is set of 2024 shall be restored to file. 8. aside. CFR No.827 of 2024 in GS No., learned Trial Court shall pass appropriate orders after giving due opportunity of hearing to the learned counsel for the plaintiff / petitioner The representing in the Trial Court, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall 9. 10. stand closed. SD/-A VIJAVA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal Civil Judge [Jr. Division], Ponnur, Guntur District. 2. One CC to Ms. T V Sri Devi, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies YM PRK / HIGH COURT /I DATED:09/05/2025 ORDER CRP.No.649 of 2025 0 8 JUL 2025 Ip jSCurrwrt Sectiwi^v o Co ALLOWING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS