1 APHC010559612025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2785/2025 Between: 1. MASAPALLI SUBRAMANYAM, DIED LEAVING BEHIND HIS LRS 4 TO 6 2. MASAPALLI MURALI KRISHNA, , 40 YEARS S/O. LATE. PENCHALAIAH 3. MASAPALLI SAVITHRAMMA, DIED 4. MASAPALLI ASHA, , D/O. LATE SUBRAMANYAM, AGED 28 YEARS. 5. MASAPALLI LAVANYA,, D/O. LATE. SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS ( ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VASANTHA NAGAR, D.NO. 7/172, RIY KODUR TOWN AND MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ERSTWHILE KADAPA DISTRICT) ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. MASAPALLI VENKATARATNAMA, AT PRESENT 38 YEARS W/O. LATE. SUBBA NARASIMHULUY 2. MASAPALLI BHAVANA AT, PRESENT 24 YEARS, D/O. LATE SUBBA NARASIMHULU 3. MASAPALLI VINAY, AT PRESENT 22 YEARS S/O. LATE SUBBA NARASIMHULU ( ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KOLIMI STREET, RAJAMPET TOWN AND MANDAL ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ERSTWHILE KADAPA DISTRICT) 2 4. MASAPALLI SIVA GOWTHAM, , S/O. LATE. SUBRAMANYAM, AGED AOUT 25 YEARS RESIDENTS OF VASANTHA NAGAR, D.NO. 7/172, RIY KODUR TOWN AND MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ERSTWHILE KADAPA DISTRICT ( NOT NECESSARY PARTY TO THIS CRP) ...RESPONDENT(S): The Court made the following: ORDER: 1. The present civil revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 23.08.2025 passed in E.P.No.22 of 2025 in I.A.No.379 of 2015 in O.S.No.61 of 2022 on the file of Principle Civil Judge (Senior Division, Rajampet. The petitioners herein are the defendants/JDR and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs/DHR. The parties to this civil revision petition hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed before the trial court for the sake of convenience. 2. The case of the petitioners/JDR is that the subject suit was filed for partition of the suit schedule properties 1 to 7. The said suit was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to establish their rights over the suit schedule properties. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2011 passed in O.S.No.61 of 2002, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in A.S.No.40 of 2011 before the III Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kadapa. After considering the material available on record, the appellate Court was pleased to allowed the said appeal partly as under: 14. therefore for the reasons discussed above the plaintiffs put together entitled for 1/4th share 3 in the 1st item of the suit property and they are entitled to be put in separate possession of the same by metes and bounds. The appellants are at liberty to file separate petition for mesne profits before the trial court. 15. in the result the appeal is partly allowed holding that the plaintiffs put together are entitled for 1/4th share in the 1st item of the suit property and the appeal is dismissed as far as times 2 to 7 of the suit schedule property is concerned. The parties shall bear their own costs. 3. The petitioners/JDR herein, being the defendants in the suit and respondents in the appeal, preferred a Second Appeal No.1488 of 2018, which is pending before this Court. While the said second appeal is pending for adjudication, the plaintiffs/respondents initiated E.P.No.22 of 2025 in O.S.No.61 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajampet, seeking for execution of the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.40 of 2011 inO.S.No.61 of 2002. Pursuant thereto, the trial Court passed orders and issued a warrant in respect of the suit schedule property, i.e., Schedule:D.No.7/172, 7/172-1, 7/172-2, 7/172-3, Ward No.7, Kodur Gram Panchayat area, Kodur Village and Mandal, all situated in one block, bounded by: East: House of Shaik Ghouse Mohideen, West: House of Shaik Fathimabi North: Kodur–Chennai Main Road South: Site of Mallem Kondu Ramaiah Chetty. The said property was divided into three plots as per the final decree passed in L.A.No.379 of 2015 in O.S.No.61 of 2002 dated 21.04.2025, in favour of the plaintiffs on 08.10.2025. The trial Court also issued notice for 4 execution of the same and for handing over possession of the subject suit schedule property dated 23.08.2025, which is under challenge in the present Civil Revision Petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if the order of the Court below is implemented, nothing will remain in the Second Appeal, and the rights and interests of the petitioners will be defeated unless this Court grants a stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.22 of 2025 in O.S.No.61 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajampet. It is further contended that the petitioners will suffer irreparable loss and hardship if such stay is not granted pending disposal of the Second Appeal. 5. It is a settled principle of law that unless and until the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court are interdicted or stayed by the Second Appellate Court, the decree-holders/plaintiffs are entitled to execute the same. In the present case, admittedly, there is no interim order or stay operating against the judgment and decree passed on 31.01.2013 in A.S.No.40 of 2011. Hence, the order of the Court below in issuing a warrant, even during the pendency of the Second Appeal, cannot be found fault with, cannot be hold as contrary to the procedure contemplated or in violation of law. 6. However, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, this Court is inclined to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the warrant dated 08.10.2025 for a period of four (04) weeks. The petitioners herein are directed 5 to pursue their remedies in the Second Appeal by seeking appropriate orders or by filing an appropriate petition before the Second Appellate Court. 7. With the above direction, the civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 17.10.2025 kkllkk 6 32 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.R.P. NO: 2785 of 2025 17.10.2025 klk