Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 46703 (AP)

KATRAGADDA SRINIVASA RAO v. BHAVANAM ANANTHALAKSHMI

CRP/2205/2025 · 2025-11-18

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010448542025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2205/2025 Between: 1. KATRAGADDA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. ADINARAYANA, AGED 40 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. NEAR POST OFFICE, CHOWTAPALEM, RAPARLA, N.G.PADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. BHAVANAM ANANTHALAKSHMI, W/O. SRINIVASA REDDY AGED 50 YEARS. HOME MAKER CUM CULTIVATION, R/O. 4-89, VANKAYALAPADU, INKOLLU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. 2. GORANTIA SANTHAIAH, S/O. SIVA SYAMASUNDARA RAO, AGED 74 YEARS, HINDU, CULTIVATION, R/O. INKOLLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 3. BALINEDI MOHANA RAO, (DIED) 4. BALINEDI PADMAVATHI, W/O. LATE MOHANA RAO, AGED 59 YEARS, HINDU, CULTIVATION, R/O. BUDAWADA ROAD, PAVULURU VILLAGE, INKOLLU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. 5. BALINEDI HARIBABU, S/O. LATE MOHANA RAO, AGED 36 YEARS, HINDU, MECHANIC, R/O. BUDAWADA ROAD, PAVULURU VILLAGE, INKOLLU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. 6. MERIKANAPALLI ANUSHA, W/O. KOTESWARA RAO AGED 39 YEARS, HINDU, HOME MAKER, R/O. KADAVAKUDURU ROAD, 2 INKOLLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. ...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 tomay be pleased to Set aside the order passed by the learned court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division Parchur in E.A. No. 22 of 2025 in E.P.No. 2 of 2018 in O.S. No. 96 of 2015 dated 21.08.2025, pending disposal of the main Civil Revision Case and pass such IA 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 may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No. 2 of 2018 in O.S. No. 96 of 2015 on the file of the court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division Parchur, pending disposal of the main Civil Revision Petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ANANDA KUMAR VEJANDLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. D KRISHNA MURTHY The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2205/2025 ORDER:- This revision is filed aggrieved by the order dated 21.08.2025 passed in E.A.No.22 of 2025 in E.P.No.2 of 2018 in O.S.No.96 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parchur. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since E.A.No.22 of 2025 in E.P.No.2 of 2018 in O.S.No.96 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parchur is filed under Order 21 Rule 89 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which is not an appealable order. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents demonstrates that even though the application is filed under Order 21 Rule 89, the trial Court passed the order under Order 21 Rule 92 of CPC, which is an appealable order under Order 43 of CPC. 5. Again, learned counsel for the respondents also submits that once, the trial Court passed an order under Order 21 Rule 92 of CPC which is an appealable order under Order 43 of CPC. Therefore, the present Revision Petition under Section 115 of CPC is not maintainable. 6. Considering the above said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission of this Court to withdraw the revision petition with liberty to file an appeal before the appropriate jurisdictional Court. 7. In view of the same, permission as sought for is accorded. 4 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Further, the court concerned is directed to receive the appeal, by exempting the period from the date of filing of the revision petition to the date of disposal of this revision petition. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. ___________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 19.11.2025 TPS 5 215 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Civil Revision Petition NO.2205 of 2025 19.11.2025 TPS