APHC010551882024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1223/2025 Between: 1. KOSARA VENKATA RAO, S/O (LATE) SANYASI, AGED 67 YRS, D.NO.31-7-81M ASSAM GARDENS NEAR NEELAMMA VEPACHATU, ALLIPURAM , VISAKHAPATNAM.-16- ...PETITIONER AND 1. KANGULA VARALAXMI, W/O K. PRABHAKARA RAO, AGED 62 YRS R/AT PLOT NO,55, SRI GANESH NAGAR NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE, VADLAPUDI VISAKHAPATNAM-16- 2. SMT KOSARA VARAHALAMMA DIED, A 3. SMV SEKHAR, S/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED MAJOR D.NO.37-6- 35/1 , SATYA NAGAR I MACHUKONDAVARI GARDENS, OPP V TOWN POLICE STATION , VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. KUMARI S VENNNALA, D/O S. SATYANARAYANA, AGED 40 YRS , D.NO.37-6-35/1 , SATYA NAGAR I MACHUKONDAVARI GARDENS, OPP V TOWN POLICE STATION VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. SATYANARAYANA DIED, A ...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 Set aside the Impugned Order passed in IA No. 485/2023 in IA NO.235/2017 in OS.No. 86/1999 dt 14-10-2024 on the file of 2 RRR, J C.R.P.No.1223 of 2025 XII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam by Allowing the Civil Revision Petition in the interest of the justice IA 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 Pleased to Condone the delay (132) days in representing the above CRP 1223/2025 In the interest of the justice, 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 Stay of all the further proceedings in O.S.No. 86/1999 on the file of XII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam pending disposal of the main CRP in the interest of the justice, Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. R SIVA SAI SWARUP Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 3 RRR, J C.R.P.No.1223 of 2025 The Court made the following order: The 1st respondent herein had moved O.S.No.86 of 1999, for partition of the suit schedule property. A preliminary decree was passed on 28.01.2004. Thereafter, I.A.No.166 of 2008 in O.S.No.86 of 1999, was filed by the 1st respondent for a final decree to be passed, before the learned IX Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. During the pendency of this application, the petitioner had approached this Court, by way of A.S.No.2739 of 2004 and obtained stay of final decree proceedings, vide A.S.M.P.No.262 of 2010, on 18.02.2010. 2. I.A.No.166 of 2008, which was subsequently re-numbered as I.A.No.235 of 2017, had initially been allowed on 11.06.2009, in terms of the preliminary decree and an Advocate had also been appointed as Commissioner to divide the plaint A & B Schedule properties into eight (08) equal shares. This application came to be dismissed, while the matter was posted for the report of the Commissioner. 3. The respondent had approached the Trial Court for restoration of I.A.No.235 of 2017 and filed I.A.No.485 of 2023, for condoning the delay of 1448 days in filing the application. This application came to be allowed on 14.10.2024, by the learned XII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, to whom the case appears to have been transferred. 4. Aggrieved by the said condonation of delay, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the Civil Revision Petition. 4 RRR, J C.R.P.No.1223 of 2025 5. Sri R. Siva Sai Swarup, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the application for condonation of delay does not reveal any proper facts and the respondent had also not demonstrated her alleged illness, as no medical report had been filed before this Court. The learned counsel would submit that in the absence of cogent reasons and in the absence of material supporting such request, the Trial Court could not have condoned such a long delay. 6. The Trial Court appears to have condoned the delay primarily on the ground that final decree proceedings are necessary for bringing a logical end to the preliminary decree and as such, it would be appropriate to restore the application to enable passing of a final decree at a later stage. 7. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the reasons given by the Trial Court, namely the necessity to complete the process for passing a final decree, are sufficient for condonation of this delay. 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 04.07.2025 MJA 5 RRR, J C.R.P.No.1223 of 2025 287 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1223 of 2025 04.07.2025 MJA