APHC010941822017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 6575/2017 Between: 1. KALAVAKOLU DHANANJAYA NAIDU, S/O.LATE SRINIVASULU NAIDU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O. 5-927, M.G STREET SRIKALAHSTHI TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KAPPA NAGENDRA KUMAR, S/O.CHENGAIAH R/O. JAYARAM RAO STREET SRIKALAHSTHI TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. K ANANDA NAIDU, S/O.LATE SRINIVASULU NAIDU R/O. 1-159, JAYARAM RAO STREET SRIKALAHSTHI TOWN, CHITTOOR 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 against the Order dated 27.10.2017 passed in E.A.No. 96 of 2017 in E.A. No. 113 of 2013 in E.P. No. 26 of 2011 in O.S.No. 51 of 2002, on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Srikalahasthi, IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRPMP 8430 OF 2017 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 all further proceedings in EP No.26 of 2011 in OS No.51 of 2002, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Srikalahasthi and pass 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T JANARDHAN RAO The Court made the following: 3 Order:- The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed in E.A.No.96 of 2017 whereby the application of the petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 682 days in filing a petition under Order 21 Rule 106 CPC was dismissed. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that E.A.No.113 of 2013 filed by the petitioner was dismissed for default. As such, the petitioner filed another E.A.No.96 of 2017 seeking to condone the delay of 682 days. It is submitted that the only reason assigned by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi for dismissing the E.A. is that the petitioner has not submitted any medical evidence to support his contention. It is submitted that the petitioner was suffering from jaundice and was taking treatment in Tamil Nadu. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent, who appears party-in-person. 4. Perused the record. 5. Even in the record filed along with the C.R.P., the petitioner has not submitted a copy of the medical record which he intends to rely upon for seeking to condone the delay of 682 days. In the absence of any such record, the C.R.P. cannot be considered on merits, as the primary ground raised in the present C.R.P. is that the petitioner intends to rely upon certain medical record and redress his grievance before the learned Senior Civil Judge, 4 Srikalahasthi. Since the medical record does not form part of the record before the trial Court and this Court as well, this Court is not inclined to interfere. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 20.11.2025 PNS