I APHC010565202024 0?^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3152 OF 2n2d Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Docket Order, dated 16-10-2024 passed in E.A.No,137 of 2024 of 2016 in O.S No. 102 of 1990 against the in E.P No. 101 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District Between: 1. Puvvada Madhusudhan, S/o.Late Bhaskara R/o.Ananda Enclave, Near three Temples, Vizianagaram, Wrongly mentioned as Pavvada Madhusudhan. 2. Puvvada Srinivas, S/o.Late Bhaskara R/o.Kotta Agraharam, Vizianagaram Town and Rao, aged about 63 years, Rao, aged about 66 District. ...Petitioners/Petitioners/Decree Holders AND 1. Puvvada China Satyanarayana Murty, S/o.Late Suryaprakasa Rao, aged about 80 years, R/o.Kotta Agraharam, Vizianagaram. 2. Puvvada Ayodya Ramayya, S/o.Late Suryaprakasa years, R/o.Hajishanf Street, Vizianagaram. years Rao, aged about 75 3. Puvvada Surya Krishna Ranga Rao, S/o.Late Suryaprakasa Rao, aged about 72 years. R/o.Kotta Agraharam, Vizianagaram. ■..Respondents/Respondents/Judgment Debtors lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition filed under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed i praying that in the circumstances in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in E.P No 101 of 2016 in O S No 102 of 1990 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vizianagaram pending disposal of the Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI TADDI Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following Order: nageswara rao SRI VENKAT SAILENDRA G APHC010565202024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION petition NO: 31/^9/9n9zi [3505] Between; 1.PUVVADA MADHUSUDHAN, S/0 LATE BHASKARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/0 ANANDA ENCLAVE NEAR THREE TEMPLES, VIZIANAGARAM MENTIONED AS PAWADA MADHUSUDHAN 2.PUWADA SRINIVAS,, S/O LATE BHASKARA RAO, AGED years, R/O KOTTA AGRAHARAM, VIZIAMAGARAM TOWN AND DISTRICT WRONGLY ABOUT 66 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.PUVVADA CHINA SATYANARAYANA MURTY SURYAPRAKASA RAO, AGED ABOUT KOTTA AGRAHARAM, VIZIANAGARAM 2.PUWADA AYODYA RAMAYYA, S/O LATE SURYAPRAKASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/O HAJISHARIF street, VIZIANAGARAM 3.PUWADA SURYA KRISHNA RANGA SURYAPRAKASA RAO, AGED ABOUT KOTTA AGRAHARAM, VIZIANAGARAM S/O LATE 80 YEARS, R/O RAO, S/O LATE 72 YEARS, R/O ...RESPONDENT(S): that 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that ,n the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the the n«l iT'' ‘’f toAggneved by the docket order of f! k? f Vizianagaram passed in ^A.No. 137 of 2024 in E.P No. 101 of 2016 in O S No 102 of petifionlo^thrf Poster the above petition for the following among other grounds lA NO: 1 OF ?n9d Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of et S'eTol' PieaseTto s y a Urther proceedings in E.P No. 101 of 2016 in O.S.No. 102 of 1990 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vizianagaram pending disposal of the revision petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.TADDI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.VENKAT SAILENDRAG The Court made the following order: The petitioners are the decree holders in EP No. 101 of 2016. It is the case of the petitioners that, they filed perpetual injunction against respondents in OS. No. 102 of 1990, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram. Upon contest, the said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 31.07.2008. It is further case of the petitioners/decree holders that, the respondents have violated the said decree and in view thereof, execution petition vide EP.No.101 of 2016 suit for was filed on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram. It is specifically pleaded in the execution petition that, the respondents/judgment debtors came to the petition schedule property in August and November, 2014, caused hurdles to the tenants for their ingress and egress and locked the EP schedule property. It is further stated that the said lock was removed by the petitioners, it IS further stated that the judgment debtors are trying to remove the jute bail press from the petition schedule property, in order to prove their case he filed application vide EA No. 137 of 2024 under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, seeking to appoint Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the EP schedule property. The respondents filed counter affidavit 4 denying the averments made in the said application and further stated that, there is no necessity to note down the physical features of the EP schedule property as the petitioners/decree holders can let in evidence to prove that the respondents have violated the decree. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned 2. counsel for the respondents. Perused the material available on record. 3. On perusal of the record it is clear that, it is the case of the 4. petitioners, during August and November, 2014, the respondents allegedly locked the petition schedule property and even according to the averments made in the affidavit, it is clear that the petitioners have remove the same. On further perusal of the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is categorically stated that, the judgment debtors/respondents are trying to occupy the petition schedule property and removed jute bail press. It is further stated that the respondents are trying to take possession by illegal methods and thereby violated the decree passed in the suit. 5 5. The present application is filed to appoint Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of EP schedule property to prove that the respondents have violated the decree. Further, on perusal of the averments made in the affidavit, it is categorically stated that the respondents are trying to occupy the petition schedule property by illegal methods. The same has to be gone into at the time of hearing of the execution petition. Further, it is always open to the petitioners to let in 6. evidence so as to prove that the respondents have violated the decree. Therefore, the present application is not maintainable and this Court does not find any illegality in the order impugned, and accordingly the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER SEC To, (Senior Division), Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District 2. One CC to Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Venkat Sailendra G, Advocate [OPUC] 1. TheCivilJudge 4. Two CD Copies BSV J HIGH COURT DATED; 17/07/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 3152 OF 2024 disivhssing the civil revision WITHOUT COSTS petition