1 HN, J C.R.P.No.3864_2019 APHC010437372019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3864/2019 Between: 1. S. RATHNA RAJU, S/O BAKKANNA, HINDU, AGED 52 YEARS, BUSINESS, RIO H.NO. 19/168/20, PLOT NO.12, DINAKAR NAGAR, ALWAR, SECUNDERABAD, STATE OF TELANGANA, NOW COME DOWN TO NANDIKOTKUR ...PETITIONER AND 1. P JAYAMMA, W/O SWAMANNA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 6/4, INDIRA SADAN, L.T.NAGAT, M.G. GOREGAON (W), MUBAI-62 2. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTORCUMLAO, KURNOOL 3. HANUMAKKA, W/O LATE BAKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, NAGATUR VILLAGE, NANDIKOTKUR TVLANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. SMT RAJAMINI, W/O SRINIVASULU, D/O LATE BAKICARMA, AGED 39 YEAR'S, RIO RANGARAJAPURAM ROAD, KODAMBAKKA, CHENNAI-24. 5. SMT RATHNANIMA, W/O VENKATESH, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O LATE BAKKANNA,SRINAGAR COLONY, PAGIDYLA ROAD, NANDIKOTKUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 6. MADHAVI, W/O YELLARAMUDU, AGED 33 YEARS, HINDU, R/O YELLALA VILLAGE,PAGIDYLA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2 HN, J C.R.P.No.3864_2019 ...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 tothe Order dated J3-12-2019 passed in E.A.No. 68 of 2019 in E.P.No. 9 of 20- 9 in 0.S.- Jo. 44 of 1994 on the file. of Court of -Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur. IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No. 9 of 2019 in O.S.No. 4 of 1994 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, pending disposal of the C.R.P. and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BUDIGE RANGASWAMY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K VISWANATHAM 3 HN, J C.R.P.No.3864_2019 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur in E.A.No.68 of 2019 in E.P.No.9 of 2019 dated 13.12.2019. The petitioner was set ex parte in the E.P and, as such, filed E.A.No.68 of 2019 seeking to set aside the ex parte order. The petitioner was set ex parte on 17.10.2019, and on account of the petitioner’s non-appearance, the learned Judge dismissed the E.A. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed in the E.A. indicates that the petition came up for hearing on 04.11.2019 in the presence of Sri K.Bhaskar, advocate for the petitioner, and Sri N. Suresh Kumar for the respondents. Upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, the Court ordered that there was no representation from the petitioner or counsel concerned, hence the E.A was dismissed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order passed dismissing the E.A. is contrary to the Court’s observation that the E.A. came up for hearing before the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondents. It is also submitted that this Court granted a stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.9 of 2019 on 08.01.2020. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal against the decree instead of choosing to contest the E.P. It is submitted that the EP was filed for seeking possession of the property, and that scheduled 1(1) property, or part of the schedule property, was in the possession of one private party, while the other schedule property was handed over to the decree holder. 4 HN, J C.R.P.No.3864_2019 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Considering the submissions and after perusing the order, it is evident that the learned Judge observed that the petitioner was heard in the presence of the learned counsel; however, the order also states that there was no representation for the petitioner. Be that as it may, as seen from the record, the ex parte order dated 17.10.2019 was sought to be set aside by filing the E.A.No.68 of 2019 on 23.10.2019. 7. Considering these observation and the manner in which the order was passed, this Court is inclined to set aside the order passed in E.A.No.68 of 2019, and the ex parte order dated 17.10.2019 is hereby set aside. 8. The petitioner is directed to contest the E.P. on merits. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents that the respondents are senior citizens, there shall be a direction to the Senior Civil Judge to decide E.P. No.9 of 2019 on merits preferably within a period of four (04) months from the date of the receipt of this order. 9. Accordingly, the present civil revision petition is disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:16.09.2025 NKA 5 HN, J C.R.P.No.3864_2019 96 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3864 of 2019 Date: 16.09.2025 NKA