IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 196 OF 2025 (Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 09-12-2024 in IA.No.257 of 2024 in OS.No.04/2022 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge(Senior Division), Dhone, Kurnool District.) Between: K. Ramesh Kumar, adopted son of K. Narasamma and Narayana, Hindu, aged about 49 years, Oc Advocate, Gayatri Nagar, Karmanghat, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER AND 1. K. Pullaiah, s/o Pullaiah, Hindu, 58 years, Occ agriculture, N. Venkatapuram Village, Veldurthi Mandal, Kurnool District. 2. I. Venkata Rangamma, w/o Venkateswarlu, Hindu, age 63 years, N. Venkatapuram Village, Veldurthi Mandal, Kurnool District. 3. K. Rangaiah, s/o Pullaiah, Hindu, 74 years. Plot No.2, New Gayathi Nagar, Kharmanghat L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. 4. Hemalatha, w/o K. Mohan, Hindu, 47 years Occ Agriculture, N. Venkatapuram Village, Veldurthi Mandal, Kurnool District. 5. K. Naresh, s/o K. Mohan, Hindu, 32 years, Occ Agriculture, N. Venkatapuram Village, Veldurthi Mandal, Kurnool District. 6. K. Narayana, s/o K. Pullaiah, Hindu, 60 years. Ex Service Man, D.No.86- 218, Syamalanagar, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 7. K. Rama Krishna, s/o K. Pullaiah, Hindu Aged about 53 years, C.R.P.F. Quarters Chandraya Gutta, Hyderabad. (Respondent Nos 3 to 7 is not necessary for the present) Respondents lA 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 O.S 4 of 2022 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Divison), Dhone, Kurnool District. Counsel for the Petitloner(s):SRI. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondents: — Counsel for the Respondents: — The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010032572025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] i Tuesday, the twenty second day of April two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms Justice B S Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 196/2025 Between: ...Petitioner K. Ramesh Kumar and ...Respondents K Pullaiah and others Counsel for the petitioner; I.Mahadeva Kanthrigala Counsel for the respondents: The Court made the following: ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 09.12.2024 dismissing petition in I.A.No.257 of 2024 in O.S.No.4 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhone, Kurnool District, filed by the defendant No.6 under Section 151 CPC to set aside the order dated 22.10.2024 to restore the petition in I.A.No.212 of 2024 which was dismissed for default. 2 CRP.No.196 of 2025 2. The petition was opposed by the respondents no.1 and 2 / The other respondents who plaintiffs. are co-defendants have not contested. 3. Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of no.1 and 2 / plaintiffs, there has been counsel representing the service of notice on respondents no appearance. 4. After hearing both parties, the petition Court, along with two other petitions 2024 and 259 of 2024 which evidence of D.W.7, whereas petition in I.A.No.257 of 2024 was filed to restore I.A.No.212 of 2024 which was dismissed for default. was dismissed by the trial on the same day in I.A.No.258 of were filed with regard to additional 5. It is pertinent to mention that I.A.No.212 of 2024 was filed to recast the issues. However, without going into merits as to whether the petition to restore I.A.No.212 of 2024 can be allowed or not, on the same grounds which are part of the order in the connected petitions in I.A.No.258 of 2024 and I.A.No.259 of 2024 this petition was dismissed, no nexus with the subject matter with the other In fact, this petition has two petitions. Not even a single statement is made regarding the merit or demerit in the petition, though the contents of the petition and counter were stated in the order. Thus, it is clear relating to I.A.No.257 of 2024 that it is an apparent mistake of the order in the petitions which on the record by referring to the contents were disposed of on the same day merit in the petition in a case fit to interfere by setting aside and failing to mention anything regarding I.A.No.257 of 2024. As such it iIS the order impugned in the revision. 6. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 09.12.2024 in I.A.No.257 of 2024 in O.S.No.4 of 2022 on 3 CRP.No.196 of 2025 the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhone, Kurnool District with a direction to the trial Court to pass order afresh on merits, preferably within a period of ten (10) days, by giving opportunity to both parties to advance their arguments. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this civil revision petition, shall stand closed. Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER S To, 1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhone, Kurnool District(^V 2. One CC to SRI. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three C.D.Copies nm HIGH COURT NM DATED:22/04/2025 ORDER:- CRP.No.196 of 2025 5 2 A APR 2025 ° ^ . Current ^section . ^ 2> «o. ALLOWING THE CRP