APHC010388952024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2732/2025 Between: 1. SHAIK SHAHEEN, W/O MASTHAN, AGED 33 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/H NO. 1-57, IMAM NAGAR, DESAIPET GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VETAPALEM MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. INDETI KANAKAIAH, S/O CHINA VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. BUSINESS, R/D NO. 19-19-74, GANJIPALEM, CHIRALA MANDAL, V BAPATIA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. SHAIK MUMTAJ, W/O DASTAGIRI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE, R/O NAVAJYOTHI COLONY, DESAIPET GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VETAPALEM MANDAL BAPATIA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 pleased to set aside the Docket Order dated NV,J CRP_2732_2025 2 04-07-2024 in (Un Numbered) E.A No. of 2024 (CFR No. 1860/24) in E.P No.95 of 2014 in O.S No. 30 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A RADHAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): NV,J CRP_2732_2025 3 Reserved on : 01.12.2025 Pronounced on : 31.12.2025 Uploaded on : 02.01.2026 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2732 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the docket order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala in (UnNumbered) E.A.No. of 2024 in E.P.No.95 of 2014 in O.S.No.30 of 2012 dated 04.07.2024. 2. The petitioner filed (UnNumbered) E.A.No. of 2024 before the Court below under Order 21 Rule 97 & 98 CPC to allow the claim of the petitioner by declaring her as the absolute owner of the petition schedule property and set aside the sale which was conducted on 09.12.2019. 3. After certain observations, the Trial Court came to a conclusion that, after receiving summons from the Court through her husband, the J.Dr on the next day executed gift deed in favour of her son and her son, in turn, during pendency of attachment, made transactions. NV,J CRP_2732_2025 4 Though the sale was conducted and confirmed on 30.01.2023, the petitioner kept quiet for all the period and she did not raise any objection after the decree and even at the time of sale and when the matter was coming for delivery of property, the petitioner filed E.A. of 2024. Finally, the Court below observed that, stranger can equally hesitate his grievance and claim for adjudication of his independent right, title and interest in decreetal property, after losing possession, but, here the delivery warrant was affected on 02.07.2024 and even at the time of prior notice to sale by way of paper publication which was issued, the claimant did not choose to raise any objection. As such rejected the petition on the ground that there are no merits and the petition is not maintainable. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Court below in E.A.No. of 2024 in E.P.No.95 of 2014 in O.S.No.30 of 2012 dated 04.07.2024, the present civil revision petition is filed. 4. During hearing, Sri Alladi Radhakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the Trial Court without giving an opportunity of hearing, rejected the petition under Section 21 Rule 97 & 98 CPC. He submitted that, the Court below ought to have noticed that the petitioner purchased the property from her vendor Mavuluru Naga Malleswara Rao on 06.11.2017, who indeed purchased the NV,J CRP_2732_2025 5 property from Kavvuri Venkata Ratnam GPA Holder of Shaik Rafi and, the petitioner bonafiedly purchased the property on 10.10.2022. He submits that the Court below violated the principles of natural justice without affording an opportunity to the counsel representing the petitioner, passed the docket order on 04.07.2024 without conducting regular enquiry mandated under Order 21 Rule 97 & 98 CPC. He finally contends that the petitioner being a bonafied purchaser for valuable consideration, should be put on notice, as she has interest in the E.P. schedule property, which right was denied to the petitioner. 5. Heard Sri A. Radhakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 6. On perusal of the record as well as order of the Court below dated 04.07.2024 which clearly and expressly observed that the present application is filed not only after completion of sale of E.P schedule property and after delivery of warrant / possession was effected on 02.07.2024. After delivery of warrant filing of EA.No of 2024 is certainly an afterthought and at belated stage and this Court by considering the claim of the petitioner in EA No. of 2024 should not reverse the delivery of warrant or possession to the successful bidder which was already completed and effected. NV,J CRP_2732_2025 6 Therefore, the Court below rightly rejected the contention of the petitioner. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner is entitled for notice under Order XXI Rule 97 and 98 of C.P.C. only when he approaches the Court below at pending sale proceedings before the Court below. But in the instant case the sale proceedings completed long back and delivery of warrant also effected. Therefore, consideration of the application of the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, the order of the Court below does not warrant any interference of this Hon’ble Court and the contention of the petitioner lacks merits and accordingly the present Civil Revision Petition is liable to be rejected. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. No costs. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Dated:31.12.2025 krk NV,J CRP_2732_2025 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2732 OF 2025 Dated:31.12.2025 W krk