APHC010603852025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3163] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3109/2025 Between: 1. SREE KALESWARI TRAVELS, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, CHALASANI RAMESH, S/O. CH. KRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/O D.NO. 36-11-4, SANTHI NAGAR, 1STLANE, MOGHALRAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA. 2. CHALASANI RAMESH, S/O. CH. KRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/O D.NO. 36-11-4, SANTHI NAGAR, 1ST LANE, MOGHALRAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA. 3. CHALASANI UMA DEVI, W/O. CHALASANI RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 36-11-4, SANTHI NAGAR, 1STLANE, MOGHALRAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. MUKKAMALA VENKATA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O. M.B.V. RAGHAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, PROPERTOEX OFVIJAYASRI INDUSTRIES, D.NO.13-45, OPPSUB-STATAION, NIDAMANURU VILLAGE, VIJAYAWADA RURAL MANDALAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. 2. TEJA INFRA, REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER DUGGIMPUDI BALIREDDY, S/O MARRI REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D. NO. 12-455/1/F-6, FLAT NO. 209 ABC TOWERS,TADEPALLI VILLAGE, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. 2 3. M RAJACHAND, S/O M.B.V. RAGHAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O VETERINARY COLONY, CROSS ROAD NO. 1, VIJAYAWADA 4. SHRI RAM TRANSPORT FINANCE LIMITED, REP BY ITS MANAGER, OFFICE AT DOOR NO.54-15-4A, SRDFLOOR, ZOOM COMPLEX NEAR VINAYAKA THEATRE, VIJAYAWADA. 5. M MUKTHINADH, S/O LAKSHMI NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O KRISHNA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA. 6. M NARAYANA PRASAD, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, IOC DEALER, R/O JAWAHAR AUTO NAGAR, MAIN ROAD, VIJAYAWADA. 7. SRI VENKATA DURGA PAPER AGENCIES, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR BANDUCHODE SOMESWARA RAO, S/O GOPALA RAO, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. DOOR NO. 11-41-43, ADITYA COMPLEX , KANDULAVARI STREET, VIJAYAWAD ...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 to the above-named petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 04-09- 2025 passed in I.A. No. 518 of 2024 in I.P. No.80 of 2019 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada, Krishna District, begs to present the Civil Revision Petition on the following among other. 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 to Stay all further proceedings in I P. No.80 of 2019 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada, Krishna District, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. T V P SAI VIHARI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3 The Court made the following order: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 04.09.2025 passed in I.A.No.518 of 2024 in I.P.No.80 of 2019 on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada, whereby the petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the petition in I.P.No.80 of 2019 was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. The petitioners are the respondents in I.P.No.80 of 2019 on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada. During the pendency of the said petition, the respondents filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the petition on the ground that the contention of the petitioners is that respondents are making efforts to alienate the property by way of executing a Development Agreement-cum-GPA and as the Development Agreement-cum-GPA does not confer any title that it cannot be a valid ground for conferring the title, as such, it cannot be a valid ground to declare the respondents as insolvents. 4. The said ground is not a valid ground for rejecting the petition under order VII Rule 11 CPC. Certain grounds are enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 CPC clearly, based on which a plaint or petition can be rejected. The ground, which is now pleaded, is not coming within the purview of any of the 4 said grounds enumerated under Order VII rule 11 CPC to reject the petition. If the objection of the respondents is that the said development agreement will not confer any title and it will not come in the way of the petitioners, they can as well take the said plea in the main proceedings itself, which can be adjudicated by the trial Court in the final adjudication. But certainly it cannot be a ground for rejection of the petition at the threshold. Therefore, the impugned order of the trial Court calls for no interference. The Present Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and it is liable to be dismissed. 5. Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in this case shall stand closed. _________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date: 21.11.2025 MP 5 85 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3109 of 2025 Date:21.11.2025 MP