*. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE T\A/CIMT\/ I V V L- ^ PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 49 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order in W.P. No. 30176/2024,dated 20.12.2024 on the file of the High Court. Between: Sammeta Anjaneya Reddy, S/o. Babu Reddy, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Hyderpet Village, Bapatia Mandal, Bapatia District, Andhra Pradesh. ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND 1. Akuthota Nageswara Rao, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah, Aged about 58 years, R/o. 1st Floor, 0pp. Vijay Krishna Theater, Railway Station Road, Bapatia, Bapatia District, Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2. The State of A.P., Rep by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P., Secretariat, Amaravathi. The District Collector, Bapatia District, Bapatia, Andhra Pradesh. The Joint Collector, Bapatia District, Bapatia, Andhra Pradesh. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bapatia Revenue Division, Bapatia District, Andhra Pradesh. Tahsildar, Bapatia Mandal, Bapatia Mandal, Bapatia District, Andhra Pradesh. Mandal Surveyor, O/o. Tahsildar, Bapatia Mandal, Bapatia District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. 4. 0. 6. 7 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS •i \A NO: 3 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 the order passed by the learned single judge W.P. No. 30176/2024, dated 20.12.2024. in Counsel for the Appellant: SMT. P. PADMAVATHI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : M/s. CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 7 : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: JUDGMENT f APHC0I0019872025 (N THt HiGH COURT OF ANDHRm PRADESh AT AlMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT APPEAL. NO: 49/202^ [3508] l-iiLEJ THE THE HONOURABLE Betw'een; ...APPELLANT Sammeta Anjaneya Reddy AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Akuthota Nageswara Rao and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1.P PADMAVATHl Counsel for the Ftespondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.CKR ASSOCIATES made the following Judgment; (perHon'bleSn Justice R. Raghunandar^ Rao) of Ac.2.25 cents of land in The Court The respondent who is the owner of Maruproluvaripalem Village, Bapatla Mandal and District. He Sy.No.103-1A had entered into a 26.09.2014. Subsequently, the 1 file of VI Additional District Judge, Bapatla, for seeking a declaration that the registered agreement of sale with the appellant herein respondent filed O.S.No.196 of 2023 on the on agreement stands cancelled 2 2. This suit was decreied by a judgment/decree, The 1®' respondent approached this Court by contending that a third party had filed O.S.No.42 Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bapatia dated 15.04.2024. way of W.P.No.30176 of 2024. of 2024 on the file of the against the 1 respondent for a permanent injunction on the basis of transactions third parties. The 1^' respondent contended that the said issue can be resolved by conduct of a survey and that the officials in the survey department were refusing to conduct such a survey despite an appiication being made in this regard. 3. A Learned Single Judge of this Court, by an Order dated 20,12.2024, had disposed of the Writ Petition, the case, by directing the respondents 6 & 7 herein requested by the 1®‘ respondent, after notice to all without going into the merits of to conduct the survey concerned. as 4. Aggrieved by this Order, the appellant herein Writ Appeal along with an application for leave that the appellant had filed moved the present It is the case of the appellant. an application to set aside the judgment/decree, set aside, on 27.08.2024. dated 15.04.2024 and the same had already been The appellant contends that the 1®‘ respondent has suppressed this fact and obtained the Order from the Learned Single Judge aforesaid suppression. The appellant would on the basis of the contend that the 1"' respondent had not made the appellant a party to the Writ Petition despite the necessity of impleading the appellant as a respondent in the Writ Petition 3 Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram. learned counsel appearing for the 1 respondent would contend that the non-mention of the restoration of the suit inadvertent error and in any event nothing of the suit. He would submit that the possession of the with the respondent and as such there is no prejudice to the 5. bearing O.S.No.196 of 2023 was an turns on the pendency land remains appellant in as much as the appellant has not obtained any rights over the property. He would further submit that in the absence of a registered deed of sale or deed of conveyance transferring the land to the appellant, there can be claim over the land or claiming question of the appellant making any ownership or rights over the land. Srnt. P. Padmavathi, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is in possession of the land and has already entered transactions with other persons after having made a layout in no 6. into alienation the land. This Court does not propose to go into these questions of fact determined and decided by a 7. and it would be appropriate that these are competent Civil Court. However, the question of suppression of fact remains. This Court 8. of the learned counsel for the 1 is unable to accede to the contention of the restoration of the suit is an inadvertent respondent that non mention obvious that the appellant would be a necessary party, if a suit was error. It is pending. In such circumstances, this Court must hold that there was suppression of fact. 9. It is settled law that this Court, especially in its jurisdiction under Articie-226 of Constitution of India, would not assist any person who approaches this Court without setting out all the facts. 10. In the circumstances, this Writ Appeal is allowed setting aside the Order of the Learned Single Judge, dated 20.12.2024. There shall be as to costs. no order As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// sectTon officer To, 2. The District Collector, Bapatia District 3. The Joint Collector, Bapatia District 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. Tahsildar, Bapatia Mandal Pradesh. 6. The Mandal Surveyor, O/o. Tahsildar Andhra Pradesh. 7. One CC to Smt. P. Padmavathi, 8. One CC to M/s. CKR Associates, 9. Two CCs to GP for Revenue 10.Three C.D. Copies. .,A.P., Bapatia, Andhra Pradesh. Bapatia, Andhra Pradesh. Bapatia Revenue Division, Bapatia Bapatia Mandal, Bapatia District, Andhra Bapatia Mandal, Bapatia District, Advocate [OPUC] Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh. (OUT) Cnr HIGH COURT CNR DATED:22/01/2025 JUDGMENT WA.No.49 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS