APHC010310262024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3317/2025 Between: 1. JAVVAJI JANAKI DEVI, W/O JAVVAJI VENKATA SUBBARAYUDU @ SUBBARAYUDU, FEMALE, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, R/O.D.NO.10-90, VETAPALEM VILLAGE AND MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT (NOW BAPATIA DISTRICT), A.P. 2. . MUPPIDI NAGA JYOTHI,, D/O JAVVAJI VENKATA SUBBARAYUDU @ SUBBARAYUDU, W/O LATE. M. SANKARARAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, R/O.H.NO.11-47/1, JANPADU ROAD, PIDUGURALLA TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 3. CHEBROLU VARIJA MANI PURNIMA,, D/O JAVVAJI VENKATA SUBBARAYUDU @ SUBBARAYUDU W/O VENKATA HANUMAIAH GUPTA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, R/O SAI BRUNDAVAN RESIDENCY, ROAD NO.1, MAHADEVAPURAM, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. KANDUKURI CHINNA CHENCHAIAH, S/O GURUNADHAM, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. RETD. EMPLOYEE, R/O D.NO.80 IN M.G.H COLONY, CHIRALA TOWN AND MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE PRAKASAM DT., A.P (DHR) 2. JAVVAJI LAKSHMINARAYANA, S/O CHINNI, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. DEPENDANT, R/O VETAPALEM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, 2 BAPATIA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P ...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 topleased to direct the 1st respondent to register and numbered the petition vide EAC.F.R.No.3953 of 2023 Dt.21.09.2023 in E.P.No.8 of 2022 in O.S.No.31 of 2016 on the file of SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CHIRALA by the petitioners/claimants the revision and pass 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 Pleased to condone the delay of 282 days in representing CRP No. 3317 of 2025 and pass IA NO: 2 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 pleased to order to stay all further proceedings in E.P.No.8 of 2022 In O.S.No.31 of 2016 on the file of SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CHIRALA, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K J V N PUNDAREEKAKSHUDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3317/2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present revision petition is filed seeking for direction to the Court below to register and number the claim petition and adjudicate the same as per Order 21 Rule 58 CPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court below erroneously returned the claim petition of the petitioners herein with unnecessary objections, contrary to the record. He further submits that even though the objections were complied with, the Court below erroneously not entertaining the claim petition and not proceeding with the adjudication of the claim petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Court below returned the claim petition with some objections. If the claim petitioners have complied with the objections in proper manner, Court below would have been proceeded with the adjudication of the claim petition. But without doing so, for one reason or the other, the petitioners filed the present CRP. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 4 6. The impugned order reads as under: <1. Blanks to be filled upon para 2 of the petition. 2. Sale deed dated 30.01.1967 vide document No.140/67 to be filed. 3. Family member certificate of the Javvaji Venkata Subbarayudu to be filed. 4. copy of the decree in O.S.No.152 of 2014 to be filed. 5. Registered Wills vide doc.Nos.60/97 and 24/2000 to be filed Time 7 days.= 7. On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear and categorical that the Court below returned the claim petition directing the claim petitioners to comply with the objections and granted 7 days time for resubmission. There is no endorsement of compliance of the objections and resubmission by the claim petitioners before the Court below. It seems that instead of resubmitting in proper way, for one reason or the other, the claim petitioners choose to file present Revision Petition before this Court and sought for direction to the Court below to hear the Claim petition. To substantiate the contention that even though the objections were complied with, the court below not accepting the same, there is no material place on record along with the Revision petition before this Court. 8. However, this Court believing the words of learned counsel for the petitioners, directing the petitioners to resubmit the claim petition once again complying with the objections raised by the Court below within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. After such resubmission, 5 if the objections are duly complied with, the Court below shall proceed with the claim petition as per Order 21 Rule 58 CPC in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 24.12.2025 AG 6 61 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3317/2025 24.12.2025 AG