0253102025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 15fi9 OF tMK NIMMAGADDA Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the - in I.A.No.148 of on the file of the II Additional District Judge, docket order dt.01.04.2025 in SR No. 1575 in CMA of 2025 2024 in O.S.No.314 of 2022 Kadapa. Between: Pottipati Ranganayakulu, S/o. Pedda Obanna. aged about 53 Years, R/o D.No.3/180, Dannawada Village, Mylavaram Mandal, YSR (Kadapa) District Aadhar no.853193740159, cell No.9666654903 ...PETITIONER AND Pottipati Chinna Obanna, Dannawada Village, Mylavaram Mandal, YSR (Kadapa) District S/o. Sanjanna, aged about 71 Years R/o. ...RESPONDENT jA NO: 2 OF 2Q7R Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed i praying that in the circumstances stated in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings of decree and judgment dated 30.10.2023 in O.S.No.314 of 2022 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadug ♦" Counsel for the Petitioner u. : SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following ORDER : 1 APHC010253102025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SMS [3329] TUESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1569/2025 Between: 1.POTTIPATI RANGANAYAKULU, S/0. PEDDA OBANNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/0. D.NO.3/180, DANNAWADA VILLAGE, DISTRICT NO.9666654903 MYLAVARAM MANDAL, YSR (KADAPA) AADHAR N0.853193740159, CELL • ...PETITIONER AND 1.POTTIPATI CHINNA OBANNA, S/o. Sanjanna, aged about 71 Years, R/o. Dannawada Village, Mylavaram Mandal, YSR (Kadapa) District ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High 2 Court may be pleased begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition to this Hon’ble Court aggrieved by the docket order dt.01.04.2025 in SR No. 1575 in CMA of 2025 in I.A.No.l48 of 2024 in O.S.No.314 of 2022 on the file of the Honhie II Additional District Judge, Kadapa. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the Respondent: N ■tb. 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGAD DA C.R.P.No.1569 of 2025 This Court made the following ORDER: The Petitioner herein is the Defendant and Respondent herein is the Plaintiff in the present suit. The instant Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioner aggrieved, by the docket order dated 01.04.2025 in S.R.No.1575 of 2025 in (CMA No of 2025) in I.A.No.148 of 2024 in O.S.No.314 of 2022 passed by learned II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. 2. The parties in this petition are referred as they were arrayed in O.S.No.314of2022. 3. The case of the Petitioner/Defendant is that the Respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.314 of 2022 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu against the defendant for declaration of title over suit schedule property and also for the relief of consequential delivery of possession of suit schedule property and for suit costs. 4 4. The brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff and defendant are relatives; that the plaintiff is absolute owner of the suit schedule property and having purchased'the same from its lawful owner for valid consideration under a registered sale deed dated 15.05.1974 vide Doc.No.923/1974, while so, that the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested him to lease out the said suit schedule property on rent basis. Then the plaintiff and defendant entered into an oral lease agreement and fixed rate of rent month against suit property and have been paid rent upto 2020; that were per r*/-s /-» Iwi wa iLCi Uiw iJCiC! iiJcSi iL iJiLi iiut ui iuubc to pay diiy l ei it tu tfie plaintiff; that in spite of several repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not* pay arrears of rent and became defaulter as per the terms of oral lease agreement; that as per the oral lease agreement the defendant has to vacate the suit schedule property when the defendant became defaulter, but the defendant did not vacate the suit schedule property and denied the title of the plaintiff. (a) Aggrieved by the action of the defendant, plaintiff filed O.S.No.314/2022 before learned Junior Civil Judge 5 Jammalamadugu and same was decreed as ex-parte with costs declaring the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property by order dated 30.10.2023. Ex.AI and A2 were marked on behalf of plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed I.A.No.148/2024 in O.S.No.314 of 2022 for restoration of the suit and set aside the ex-parte decree passed against the defendant and same was dismissed by order dated 28.02.2025 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu. (b) Aggrieved by the same, again the defendant filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in SR No.1575 of 2025 in CMA No. of 2025 before the learned II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur for setting aside the dismissal order of the trial Court dated 28.02.2025 passed in I.A.No. 148/2024 in O.S.No.314/2022 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Jammalamadugu and the same was returned on 01.04.2025 as “To file this Civil Miscellaneous Application Proper Court. Hence CMA is returned”. Against the same the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 6 5. Heard learned counsel for learned counsel for Respondent/Plaintiff placed on record. the Petitioner/Defe.hdant and and perused the material 6. Upon hearing both the counsel Court below dated 01.04.2025 Application Proper Court. Hence CMA i and on perusal of order of the as “To file this Civil Miscellaneous Is returned” is contrary to the O.S No.314/2022 is statutory right of the appellant. Admittedly, the filed on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu. As per the jurisdiction notified the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa Therefore, the at Proddatur is the jurisdictional appellate Court. rejection of the CMA to place before the said jurisdictional notification. appropriate Court is contrary to Both the counsel have agreed and admitted that the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur is the appellate jurisdictional Court Both the counsel requested to Additional District Judge, Therefore, the II at Proddatur, which is the receive and assign the CMA number if otherwise complied aii the required cpfnpliances. remand the matter to Court below i.e., II Kadapa at Proddatur for fresh Additional District Judge, Kadapa jurisdictional appellate Court is hereby directed to consideration. 7 After compliance in all respects the appellate Court shall take on file and assign proper number and adjudicate the matter on merits in accordance with law. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, which is the jurisdictional Appellate Court to proceed further by assigning regular number to the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal if otherwise complied and decide the matter on merits without influence of any findings made by this Court. No costs. 7. applications if any pending, shall L v_/ w w w y A o a seg u oi. stand closed. SD/- B.PRASADARAO ASSISTANT I^^TRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. 2. The Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jammalamadugu. 3. One CC to SRI. SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies PR TAC ,4* HIGH COURT DATED:19/08/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 1569 OF 2025 g( 2 7 OCT 2025 yO c* ni .Co Sectioa^>>' DISPOSING THE CRP