APHC010842672016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: 1. N DROWPATHI & 1 OTHER, W/O GANIRAJU, DIED. 2. NEREDUMILLI PRABHAKARA RAO, S/O GANIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, HINDU, BUSINESS, R/O. CHINAPETA. TANELANKA VILLAGE, MUMMIDIVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 1. P VENKATA RAO E GODAVARI DIST 1 OTHER, S/O CIANLTTINNA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O. CHINAPETA, TANELANKA VILLAGE MOMMIDIVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. BUDITHI SAROJINI, W/O NAGESWARA RAO, AGED 66 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSE WIFE, BALAYOGI CA MUMMIDIVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. (2ND RESPONDENT IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS CRP) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. G SIMHADRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. B NAGA SAILAKSHMI The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1131/2016 N DROWPATHI & 1 OTHER, W/O GANIRAJU, DIED. NEREDUMILLI PRABHAKARA RAO, S/O GANIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, HINDU, BUSINESS, R/O. CHINAPETA. TANELANKA VILLAGE, MUMMIDIVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND P VENKATA RAO E GODAVARI DIST 1 OTHER, S/O CIANLTTINNA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O. CHINAPETA, TANELANKA VILLAGE MOMMIDIVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. BUDITHI SAROJINI, W/O NAGESWARA RAO, AGED 66 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSE WIFE, BALAYOGI CANAI BOND ROAD, MUMMIDIVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. (2ND RESPONDENT IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS CRP) ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): Counsel for the Respondent(S): B NAGA SAILAKSHMI The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3457] NEREDUMILLI PRABHAKARA RAO, S/O GANIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, HINDU, BUSINESS, R/O. CHINAPETA. TANELANKA VILLAGE, MUMMIDIVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) P VENKATA RAO E GODAVARI DIST 1 OTHER, S/O CIANLTTINNA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O. CHINAPETA, TANELANKA VILLAGE MOMMIDIVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. BUDITHI SAROJINI, W/O NAGESWARA RAO, AGED 66 YEARS, NAI BOND ROAD, MUMMIDIVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. (2ND RESPONDENT ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Order:- The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2015, whereby E.A. No. 151 of 2015 was allowed by the Junior Civil Judge, Mummidivaram. The petitioners are the judgment debtors in O.S. No. 71 of 1995. E.P. No. 15 of 2008 was filed for recovery of possession pursuant to the decree passed in O.S. No. 71 of 1995. The E.P. was dismissed for default on 25.08.2015. The 1st respondent filed E.A. No. 151 of 2015, seeking to set aside the order of dismissal and to restore the E.P. to the file. The learned Judge, vide the order dated 25.11.2015, set aside the order of dismissal for default and restored the E.P. to the file. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. On enquiry, it is submitted that the E.P. is still pending before the trial court. It is further submitted that the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 71 of 1995 passed away on 12.11.2012. The E.A. was filed after a period of three (03) years without bringing the legal heirs of the 1st defendant on record. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Perused the record. 5. The death certificate of the 1st defendant is filed along with the annexures, showing that the 1st defendant in the suit passed away on 12.11.2012, and the death was registered on 14.11.2012. Despite the demise of the 1st respondent, E.A. No. 151 of 2015 was filed by arraying the deceased 3 person as the 1st respondent in the application. It is the responsibility of the plaintiff to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased 1st respondent, if any. However, the decree holder has failed to bring on record the legal heirs of the 1st defendant in E.P. No. 15 of 2008. 6. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 25.11.2015 deserves to be set aside, granting an opportunity to the 1st respondent to file another E.A. by bringing on record the legal heirs of the 1st respondent in O.S. No. 71 of 1995. 7. With these observations, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed off. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 23.07.2025 PNS