APHC010700152025 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: 3738/2025 Between: 1. PARIMI PETHURU, S/O.ANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT YEARS 2. 2. PARIMI RAJASEKHAR, S/O.PETHURU, AGED ABOUT YEARS, BOTH ARE HINDU, AGRICULTURAL COOLIES. RESIDENT OF PARIMIPALEM (SANJEEVA NAGAR), ADDANKI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. PARIMI YEBU, S/o. Anjaiah, Aged about 64 years, Male, Hindu Resident of Addanki Village and Mandal Prakasam District, Business ...RESPONDENT 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 above-named petitioners beg to present the above Revision Petition in this Honble Court aggrieved by Docket Order Dated 16-12-2025 IN IA.N0.968 of 2025 IN AS.NO.7 OF 2021 on the file of the Court of the III Additional District Judge at Ongole, Prakasam District, wherein granted stay of execution proceedings in EP.No.21 of 2023 in OS.NO.72 of 2018 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Addanki subject to deposit 50percentof decretal amount and also suit costs in OS.No.72 of 2018 in favour of the petitioners/appellants in the above matter for the following among other IA NO: 1 OF 2025 2 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 suspend the Order dated 16-12-2025 in IA.N0.965 of 2025 in AS.No.7 of 2025 on the file of the court of the III Additional District Judge at Ongole, Prakasam District pending disposal of the above Revision in this Hon’ble Court in interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SURESH BABU JAGARLAMUDI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3738/2025 ORDER:- The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the docket order dated 16.12.2025 passed in I.A.No.968 of 2025 in A.S.No.7 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the III Additional District Judge at Ongole, Prakasam District. 2. The petitioners herein are defendants and the respondent is plaintiff in the suit. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit i.e., O.S.No.72 of 2018 is filed for recovery of money. The said suit was decreed on 31.01.2020 in favour of the plaintiff on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki. The petitioners herein assailed the said judgment and decree by way of A.S.No.7 of 2021. Since no stay of operation of decree was granted in the said appeal, the respondent herein/plaintiff filed E.P.No.21 of 2023 for execution of the decree and judgment passed in the suit. Wherein, the execution Court ordered for sale of property of the petitioners herein for realization of the decretal amount on 09.12.2025. Against which, the petitioners herein filed I.A.No.968 of 2025 seeking stay of all further proceedings. Wherein, the lower appellate Court passed an order directing the petitioners herein/defendants to deposit 50% of the decretal amount including the suit costs. The said order is assailed before this Court on the ground that the property attached and brought to the sale by the execution court is not the 4 property of the petitioners herein/defendants, it is joint family property inherited from their ancestors. He further submits that once the property put for auction pursuant to the execution proceedings, which is a joint family property, the court would not proceed with the auction in respect of that property by enforcing the rights under decree against JDRs/some coparceners by ignoring the rights of the other coparceners is contrary to law. He further argued that the court below without considering the said fact erroneously directed the petitioners herein to deposit 50% of the decretal amount is arbitrary, illegal and perverse, as such liable to be set aside. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material placed on record. 5. It is an admitted fact that the suit is decreed against the petitioners herein and the same was assailed by the petitioners herein before the Lower Appellate Court by way of appeal in the year 2021. In fact that the Lower Appellate Court not stayed the operation of the decree and judgment of the trial Court. Therefore, the plaintiff is at liberty to enforce the rights granted under decree and judgment in accordance with law. It seems that the plaintiff preferred an execution petition, wherein, the Execution Court rightly attached the property of the petitioners herein. After hearing, the Execution Court ordered auction in respect of the attached property of the petitioners/JDRs herein on 09.12.2025. At the juncture, the petitioners/JDRs herein filed claim petition I.A.No.968 of 2025 seeking for stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.21 of 2023. On perusal of the order of the trial Court rightly held that 5 since, the decree is passed on merits instead of pressing for disposal of the appeal, filing this application seeking stay of all further proceedings in E.P. indicates that the intention of the petitioners is only to drag the execution proceedings and auction sale. However, the Lower Appellate Court stayed the auction proceedings subject to deposit of the 50% of the decretal amount including with suit costs by the JDRs herein. The said order of the Lower Appellate Court is valid, reasonable and supported by the evidence on record. It is further observed that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners herein that the subject property is a joint family/ancestral property and the same cannot be put for auction is not valid and unsustainable for the reason that there are no other claimants come forward to file any claim petition other than the JDRs herein either for calming rights over the property or claiming any share out of the property. In the absence of the same, even though it is a joint family property, it can be presumed that it might have been either fell to the share of the petitioners/JDRs or the petitioners herein are the only legal heirs. 6. In view of the reasons stated above, the Lower Appellate Court rightly directed the petitioners herein to deposit 50% of the decretal amount along with the suit costs. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners herein are unable to procure the funds on or before 29.12.2025 and requested some more time to honour the order of the trial Court and prayed for reduction of the 25% of the decretal amount. Considering the said request, this Court is inclined to modify the order of the 6 Lower Appellate Court dated 16.12.2025 by directing the petitioners to deposit 1/3rd of the decretal amount along with suit costs on or before 08.01.2026 and the Execution Court is directed to defer the date of auction for further date. If, the petitioners/JDRs herein failed to deposit the amount as directed herein, the court below is at liberty to proceed further as it is, from the stage of proceedings as on today. 7. With the above direction, 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 Note: C.C. by two days B/o.TPS 7 50 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3738 of 2025 24.12.2025 Note: C.C. by two days B/o.TPS