APHC010525962024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2855/2024 Between: 1. CHEPURI @ SAPUR LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O. LATE SUNDAR RAMULU @ SUNDARA RAMAIAH, AGED 63 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING AT 14/96, KAPA STREET, NEAR VENKATESWARASWAMY TEMPLE, CUMBUM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. CHEPURI @ UKKADAPU SIVA NAGA MANI,, W/O. UKKADAPU PEDDA PULLAIAH, AGED 35 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING AT 15-44, KAPA STREET, CUMBUM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. CHEPURI @ SAPUR SIVA NAGENDRA,, S/O. LATE SUNDAR RAMULU @ SUNDARA RAMAIAH, AGED 32 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT 14/96, KAPA STREET, NEAR VENKATESWARASWAMY TEMPLE, CUMBUM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. CHEPURI SIVA NAGA MALLIKARJUNA,, S/O. LATE SUNDAR RAMULU @ SUNDARA RAMAIAH, AGED 31 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT 14/96, KAPA STREET, NEAR VENKATESWARASWAMY TEMPLE, CUMBUM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. NALI BALAMMA, W/O. RAMANARAYANA, AGED 53 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING AT H.NO.28/1050/D2A, SAIBABA NAGAR, 2 VS,J C.R.P.No.2855 of 2024 NANDYAL TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2. KANUMARLA KANUMARLA NARAYANA REDDY DIED AND HIS LR KANUMARLA SRIDEVI, W/O. RAMASANKAR REDDY, AGED 40 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING AT C CAMP, KURNOOL TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...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 allow the revision setting aside the docket Order dated 18.11.2024 passed in EP No.52 of 2016 in OS No.356 of 2005 in closing the execution proceedings by the Junior Civil judge, Giddalur and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 of delivery of possession of the land admeasuring Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.214/1 of Cumbum Revenue Village & Mandal, Prakasam District in EP No.52 of 2016 in OS No.356 of 2015 on the file Junior Civil Judge Court, Giddalur, pending disposal of the main Revision Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SESHADRI GOALLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S SYAMSUNDER RAO The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.R.P.No.2855 of 2024 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/third party claimants challenging the docket order, dated 18.11.2024 passed in E.P.No.52 of 2016 in O.S.No.356 of 2005 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur, Prakasam District. 2. The petitioners before this Court are the third party claimants in E.P.No.52 of 2016 in O.S.No.356 of 2005 and the 1st petitioner is the claim petitioner in the said Execution Petition. The husband of 1st petitioner by name late Sundara Ramaiah purchased land to an extent of Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.214/1 situated at Cumbum Village and Panchayat, Prakasam District from one Kanumarla Narayana Reddy, who is the original judgment debtor, under a registered sale deed bearing document No.140 of 2002 dated 06.02.2002 for valid sale consideration of Rs.18,000/-. Thereafter, possession was handed over to the husband of 1st petitioner and his name was also mutated in the revenue records as pattadar and possessor of the said land. 4. Subsequently, the husband of 1st petitioner died on 06.01.2014, leaving behind the petitioners herein as his legal heirs. After the death of her husband, the name of 1st petitioner was incorporated in the webland records as pattadar and possessor of the said property. 5. In the year 2016, the respondent/decree holder along with Court Amin, visited the subject property and informed the 1st petitioner that a decree and judgment had been obtained against original JDR relating to the said property 4 VS,J C.R.P.No.2855 of 2024 and that execution proceedings had been initiated seeking delivery of possession. 6. After coming to know about the said judgment and decree, the petitioners herein filed a suit in O.S.No.366 of 2018 on 18.09.2018 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur against the respondent herein/decree holder and Kanumarla Narayana Reddy who is her seeking to declare the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.356 of 2005 as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents herein from interfering with the suit schedule property. During pendency of the said suit, Kanumarla Narayana Reddy died in the year 2021 and subsequently, his daughter Kanumarla Sridevi was impleaded as his legal representative in the E.P. proceedings. 7. The petitioners herein filed a claim petition vide E.A.No.688 of 2018 in E.P.No.52 of 2016 in O.S.No.356 of 2005 under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Civil Procedure Code, claiming the property shown as Item No.3 in the said E.P. schedule was purchased by the husband of the 1st petitioner from the original judgment debtor. The petitioners also filed E.A.No.689 of 2018 seeking to stay all further proceedings in E.P.No.52/2016 in O.S.No.356 of 2018. On 30.08.2024, the Court below dismissed E.A.Nos.688 of 2018 and 689 of 2018 for default. 5 VS,J C.R.P.No.2855 of 2024 8. The grievance of the petitioners is that, vide impugned docket order dated 18.11.2024, the trial Court closed the proceedings in E.P.No.52 of 2016 in O.S.No.356 of 2005, as under: “As per Ameen report delivery warrant effected and property delivered. Hence, this E.P. is closed.” 9. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners. 10. Heard Mr.Golla Seshadri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.S.Syam Sundar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 11. The 1st respondent/decree holder filed a detailed counter stating that the sole contention raised by the revision petitioners/third-party claimants is that, without deciding the claim petition through due process of trial, the Court below closed the E.P.No.52 of 2016 in O.S.No.356 of 2005 on 18.11.2024. It is stated that on 30.08.2024, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur, Prakasam District dismissed E.A.Nos.688 and 689 of 2018 in E.P.No.52 of 2016 filed by the petitioners as dismissed for default and thereafter, ordered issuance of a delivery warrant. Accordingly, on 13.09.2024, the Court below recorded following order: “Delivery warrant not entrusted; issue delivery warrant on same process. Call on 14.10.2024. On 14.10.2024, the Court below directed the concerned Station House Officer to provide police aid for execution of the delivery warrant. Subsequently, on 18.11.2024, the Court below 6 VS,J C.R.P.No.2855 of 2024 recorded that “As per Ameen Report Delivery Warrant effect and property delivered. Hence, this E.P. is closed.” 12. It is further stated that by virtue of the delivery of possession of the suit schedule property, Item Nos.1, 2 and 5 situated in Kakarla Village and Item Nos.3 and 4 situated in Cumbum Town were delivered through Ameen report dated 18.11.2024 to respondent No.1. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition would become infructuous. The petitioners, having failed to take steps for restoration of the claim petition in E.A.No.688 of 2018 are now attempting to take advantage of an inadvertent error occured in the docket order dated 30.08.2024, which shows that E.A.No.682 of 2018 and E.A.No.689 of 2018 are dismissed for default, which is a typographical mistake. It is further clarified that there is no such E.A.No.682 of 2018 is pending before the same Court. 13. In view of the admitted fact that E.A.Nos.688 and 689 of 2018 were dismissed for default on 30.08.2024, and that no steps were taken by the petitioners to seek restoration of those applications, the subsequent order dated 18.11.2024, recording delivery of warrant was effected and closing the executing petition, cannot be faulted. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find any merits in the present Civil Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. 7 VS,J C.R.P.No.2855 of 2024 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :31.10.2025. KGR