APHC010558232025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the Second day of December, Two Thousand and Twenty Five The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No. Between: 1. Talari Obula Naidu, S/o. Occupation: Cultivation & business, R/o.D.No.2/18 Kadiri Mandal, Sree Sathya Sai District (earlier Ananthapur District) 1.Smt.Kesavapalli Lakshmidevi, W/o.Murali, D/o.Devalam Venkata Ramana, aged about 45 years, Occupation : Employee at Sree Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple & Cultivation, R/o.D.No.5/145 Ayyappa Swamy Temple, Gollamma Mandapam Street, Kadiri Town, Kadiri Mandal, Sree Sathya Sai District. (earlier Ananthapur District.) 2.Smt.Rachepalli Hemavathi, W/o.Venkatanarayana, D/o.Devalam Venkata Ramana, aged about 42 years, Occupation: House wife & cultivation, R/o.D.No.5/145 town, Gollamma Mandapam street, Kadiri Sathya Sai District. (earlier Ananthapur District.) 3.Smt.Devalam Jyothi, W/o.Thollamadugu Ashok Kumar, D/o.Devalam Venkata Ramana, aged about 40 years, Occupation : House wife, R/o.D.No.5 / 145-61-D, near Ayyappa swamy temple, Gollamma mandapam street, Kadiri (earlier Ananthapur District.) 4.Smt.Devalam Sugunamma, W/o Occupation : Retired employee, beside Ex-M.L.A. Kandikunta Prasad’s house, Kadiri Sree Sathya Sai District. (earlier Ananthapur District.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the Second day of December, Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.3069 of 2025 alari Obula Naidu, S/o.Late Obulesu, aged about 46 years, Cultivation & business, R/o.D.No.2/18-1, Kadiri Town, Kadiri Mandal, Sree Sathya Sai District (earlier Ananthapur District) ...P and mt.Kesavapalli Lakshmidevi, W/o.Murali, D/o.Devalam Venkata Ramana, aged about 45 years, Occupation : Employee at Sree Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple & Cultivation, R/o.D.No.5/145-61 Ayyappa Swamy Temple, Gollamma Mandapam Street, Kadiri Town, ri Mandal, Sree Sathya Sai District. (earlier Ananthapur District.) mt.Rachepalli Hemavathi, W/o.Venkatanarayana, D/o.Devalam Venkata Ramana, aged about 42 years, Occupation: House wife & cultivation, R/o.D.No.5/145-61-D, near Ayyappa swamy temple, town, Gollamma Mandapam street, Kadiri Town, Kadiri Mandal, Sree arlier Ananthapur District.) mt.Devalam Jyothi, W/o.Thollamadugu Ashok Kumar, D/o.Devalam Venkata Ramana, aged about 40 years, Occupation : House wife, D, near Ayyappa swamy temple, Gollamma mandapam street, Kadiri Town, Kadiri Mandal, Sree Sathya Sai (earlier Ananthapur District.) Devalam Sugunamma, W/o.Sreenivasulu, aged about 74 years, Occupation : Retired employee, R/o.D.No.30-1-2-B, old Koneruvu street, M.L.A. Kandikunta Prasad’s house, Kadiri Town & M Sree Sathya Sai District. (earlier Ananthapur District.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Tuesday, the Second day of December, Two Thousand and Twenty Five ged about 46 years, 1, Kadiri Town, Kadiri Mandal, Sree Sathya Sai District (earlier Ananthapur District). ...Petitioner mt.Kesavapalli Lakshmidevi, W/o.Murali, D/o.Devalam Venkata Ramana, aged about 45 years, Occupation : Employee at Sree Lakshmi 61-D, Near Ayyappa Swamy Temple, Gollamma Mandapam Street, Kadiri Town, ri Mandal, Sree Sathya Sai District. (earlier Ananthapur District.) mt.Rachepalli Hemavathi, W/o.Venkatanarayana, D/o.Devalam Venkata Ramana, aged about 42 years, Occupation: House wife & D, near Ayyappa swamy temple, Kadiri andal, Sree mt.Devalam Jyothi, W/o.Thollamadugu Ashok Kumar, D/o.Devalam Venkata Ramana, aged about 40 years, Occupation : House wife, D, near Ayyappa swamy temple, Gollamma andal, Sree Sathya Sai District. Sreenivasulu, aged about 74 years, B, old Koneruvu street, Town & Mandal, 2 BSB,J C.R.P.No.3069 of 2025 5.Devalam Vijay Bhaskar, S/o.Sreenivasulu, aged about 45 years, Occupation : Record Assistant, R/o.D.No.30-1-2-B, old Koneruvu street, beside Ex-M.L.A. Kandikunta Prasad’s house, Kadiri Town & Mandal, Sree Sathya Sai District. (earlier Ananthapur District.) 6.Smt.D.Usha Rani @ R.Usharani, D/o.Late Sreenivasulu, aged about 40 years, Occupation : House wife, R/o.D.No.30-1-2-B, old Koneruvu street, beside Ex-M.L.A. Kandikunta Prasad’s house, Kadiri Town & Mandal, Sree Sathya Sai District. (earlier Ananthapur District.) ...Respondents: Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Kristam Sakthi Niranjan Guptha Counsel for the respondents: Nil 3 BSB,J C.R.P.No.3069 of 2025 The Court made the following order: This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the action of the trial Court in entertaining and numbering I.A.No.775 of 2024 in I.A.No.911 of 2019 in O.S.No.377 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri. 2. This revision petitioner filed the suit against the respondents for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 24.06.2008. On 24.09.2019, the trial Court proceeded ex-parte against the defendants as the defendants have not filed written statement within time. Thereafter, the defendants Nos.4 and 5 filed I.A.No.1263 of 2019 under Order IX Rule 7 of C.P.C. to set aside the ex- parte order dated 24.09.2019. The petition was allowed on 25.02.2020 since the counsel for the respondent / plaintiff reported no counter across the bench. The trial Court allowed the petition conditionally that the defendants Nos.4 and 5 shall pay costs of Rs.300/- to the plaintiff and file written statement on or before 10.03.2020 lest the order is deemed to have been vacated. On 10.03.2020, as the costs were not paid nor was the written statement filed, the petition was recorded to be dismissed for default for compliance of the conditions. 3. Thereafter, all the defendants filed I.A.No.121 of 2021 under Order IX, Rule 7 of C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte order dated 10.03.2020. The petition was opposed by the plaintiff by filing counter. Even then, the petition was allowed by the trial Court, even without recording that counter was filed, stating that in the larger ends of justice and in order to adjudicate the substantive rights of the parties in lis, the exparte order dated 10.03.2020 passed against the petitioners is set aside. 4. The trial Court committed serious error in allowing the petition by all the defendants, though the order was passed in I.A.No.1263 of 2019 in favour of 4 BSB,J C.R.P.No.3069 of 2025 the defendants Nos.4 and 5 only. Further, the trial Court has not recorded whether the conditions imposed in the order dated 25.02.2020 have been complied by the defendants Nos.4 and 5 or not. 5. Again, on 22.04.2024, the trial Court again set the defendants ex-parte for not filing their written statements as per the conditions in I.A.No.1263 of 2019. 6. As such, to set aside the order dated 22.04.2024, all the defendants filed petition under Order IX Rule 7 of C.P.C. seeking opportunity to contest the suit. This petition is cleverly shown to be filed in I.A.No.911 of 2019. In fact, I.A.No.911 of 2019 was filed by the plaintiff along with this suit, under Order XXXIX Rules No.1 and 2 of C.P.C. When the notice on the latest petition was given to the counsel for the plaintiff, an endorsement was made questioning the maintainability of the petition, as the earlier petitions were dismissed on two occassions and the relief in the present petition for the same kind, is hit by res-judicata and requested to reject the petition. No attempt was made to hear on the admissibility of the petition before it is numbered. In spite of the objection, the trial Court registered the petition as I.A.No.775 of 2024 in I.A.No.911 of 2019 and posted the petition for filing counter. 7. Aggrieved by such further action, this revision petition was filed. 8. Events above noted would amply indicate the misuse of the process of law and the Courts by the petitioners in I.A.No.775 of 2024. The trial Court ought to have been cautious at the time of registering the petition in the light of the objection raised for its numbering as well, much less in the merit in the relief claimed. Though, the petition I.A.No.775 of 2024 is shown to be filed in a pending interlocutory application in I.A.No.911 of 2019, the relief sought is directly in relation to the ex-parte order passed in the suit and to contest the suit. The orders passed in the previous petitions have become final and the conditions therein have not been complied so far. Even when an application 5 BSB,J C.R.P.No.3069 of 2025 was filed seeking relief of setting aside an ex-parte order, the petitioners have never shown bonafides in the plea, to contest the suit, by filing written statement along with the petitions. The condition to file written statement has not been complied. Under the above circumstances, it is a clear case of abuse of process of law by the respondents herein. As the trial Court committed serious irregularity, the order by which the interlocutory application is numbered as I.A.No.775 of 2024 and the proceedings further taken thereon are liable to be set aside. The trial Court shall take consequential step. 9. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed. ___________________ ___ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Dated. 02.12.2025 GRL 6 BSB,J C.R.P.No.3069 of 2025 231 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi C.R.P. No.3069 of 2025 Dated. 02.12.2025 GRL