r APHC010276822025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA P AT AMARAVATI t: B THURSDAY THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1618 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Civil Revision petition being aggrieved by the Docket Order dated 13-05-2025 E.A.No.18 of 2025 in E.A.No.5 of 2025 in E.P. No.268 of 2011 in O.S.No.731 of 2007 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram Between: passed in 1. Lodagala Sravani, D/o late Rama Satyanarayana Aged about 38 years, R/o 21-4-70/2, Chikkala Street, Vizianagram, Vizianagaram District. 2. Lodagala Rama Krishna, S/o late Rama Satyanarayana, Aged about 35 years, R/o 21-4-70/2, Chikkala Street, Vizianagram, Vizianagaram District. 3. Lodagala Rama Tulasi, S/o late Rama Satyanarayana, Aged about 33 years, R/o 21-4-70/2, Chikkala Street, Vizianagram, Vizianagaram District. 4. Lodagala Nagamani, W/o late Rama Satyanarayana, Aged about 33 years, R/o 21-4-70/2, Chikkala Street, Vizianagram, Vizianagaram District. ■ / ...Proposed Petitioners/Claim Petitioners AND 1. Kilana Srinivasa Rao, S/o late Atchayya, Aged about 38 years, R/o D.No.12-5-17, Vizianagaram District. Golla Veedhi, Near Water Tank, Kothapeta, ...Respondent/Petitioner 73'^'^ Party Auction Purchaser 2. Killampudi Chinnamma, W/o Satya Rao, Aged about 56 years, R/o Chikkala Veedhi, Vizianagaram, Vizianagram District ...Respondent/Piaintiff 3. Lodagala Rama Satyanarayana, S/o late Rama Tulasi, (Died) Aged about 50 years, R/o Budi Veedhi, Vizianagaram, Vizianagram District. (Died). ...Respondent/Defendant lA 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 to stay the Docket Order dated 13-05-2025 passed in E.A.No.18 of 2025 in E.A.No.5 of 2025 in E.P. No.268 of 2011 in O.S.No.731 of 2007 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, Pending disposal of Civil Revision Petition Counsel for the Petitioners :SRI HARINADH NIDAMANURI Counsel for the Respondents The Court made the following Order: CW'J^o.ieiS of2025 1 APHC010276822025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1618/2025 Between: 1.LODAGALA SRAVANI,, D/0 LATE RAMA SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/0 21-4-70/2, CHIKKALA STREET, VIZIANAGRAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2.LODAGALA RAMA KRISHNA,, S/0 LATE RAMA SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/0 21-4-70/2, CHIKKALA STREET, VIZIANAGRAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 3.LODAGALA RAMA TULASI S/0 LATE RAMA SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/0 21-4-70/2, CHIKKALA STREET, VIZIANAGRAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. )} 4.LODAGALA NAGAMANI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/0 21-4-70/2, CHIKKALA STREET VIZIANAGRAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. W/0 LATE RAMA SATYANARAYANA, > j ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.KILANA SRINIVASA RAO, S/0 LATE ATCHAYYA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/0 D.NO. 12-5-17, GOLLA VEEDHI, NEAR WATER TANK, KOTHAPETA, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2.KILLAMPUDI CHINNAMMA, W/0 SATYA RAO, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O CHIKKALA VEEDHI, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGRAM DISTRICT 3.LODAGALA RAMA SATYANARAYANA, S/O LATE RAMA TULASI, (DIED) AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O BUDI VEEDHI, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGRAM DISTRICT. (DIED). ‘RCJ C‘R^ Wo. 1618 of2025 2 ...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 toThe above mentioned, petitioners beg to submit this Memorandum of Civil Revision petition being aggrieved by the Docket Order dated 13-05- 2025 passed in E.A.No.18 of 2025 in E.A.No.5 of 2025 in E.P. No.268 of 2011 in O.S.No.731 of 2007 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram lA 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 to grant leave to the petitioners to file CRP against the Docket Order dated 1305.2025 passed in EA.No. 18 of 2025 in E.A.No. 5 of 2025 in EP.No. 268 of 2011 in OS.No. 731 of 2007 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizinagaram, pending disposal of the CRP and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. lA 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 may be pleased to stay the Docket Order dated 13-05-2025 passed in E.A.No.18 of 2025 in E.A.No.5 of 2025 in E.P. No.268 of 2011 in O.S.No.731 of 2007 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, Pending disposal of Civil Revision Petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.HARINADH NIDAMANURI ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the docket order dated 13.05.2025 passed in E.A.No.18 of 2025 in E.A.No.5 of 2025 in E.P.No.268 of 2011 in O.S.No.731 of 2007 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram. ‘RCJ ^0.1618 of2025 3 2. The Revision Petitioners claim to be the Legal Representatives of the deceased Rama Satyanarayana/ the Judgment Debtor in E.P.No.268 of 2011. 3. The case set out by the petitioners as could be perceived from the material available on record is that respondent no.2 filed suit vide O.S.No.731 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram for recovery of the amount borrowed by father of petitioner nos.l to 3 and husband of petitioner no.4 viz., Rama Satyanarayana and got the subject property attached before judgment. The said suit was decreed on 25.06.2010. Later, the respondent no.2 filed E.P.No.268 of 2011 for realization of decree debt by bringing the subject property to auction sale. The petitioners filed claim petitions in the said E.P.to raise the attachment contending that the said property is ancestral joint family property and the J.Dr.alone had no exclusive right over the property. However, the petitioners could not pursue those petitions and those petitions were dismissed for default. The father of petitioners 1 to 3 viz., Rama Satyanarayana died on 12.02.2025 and in the month of April,2025, respondent no.l along with somebody said to be the court employees came to the subject property and informed that respondent no.l purchased the subject property in court auction sale and they came to take over possession of the property. When the petitioners objected, they left the premises. In view of the obstruction caused by the petitioners, respondent no.l filed E.A.No.18 of 2025 for granting police 30 C‘KSP^o. 1618 of2025 aid and the said petition 13.05.2025. was allowed by the executing court vide orders dated 4. Heard Sri N.Harinadh, learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. Sri N.Harinadh, learned would submit that the petitioners filed Court and also filed counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration claim petition before the executing execution and the said a petition for granting stay of petitions were returned with objections and while the petitioners were taking answering the objections, the respondent steps to resubmit the petitions after no.l filed petition seeking police would further contend that them from the schedule protection and the same was ordered. He now the respondent no.l is trying to dispossess property, which is an ancestral joint family property, in his attempts, the rights of the get adversely affected. Accordingly, and in case the respondent no.l succeeds petitioners in the subject property would prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition. 6. Perused the material submissions made by the learned available on record and counsel for the petitioner. considered the 7. In view of the submission petitioners that the petitioners have before the office, it is not observation made by this Court made by learned counsel for the resubmitted the claim and stay petitions executing Court, after complying with the objections raised by the appropriate to go in to merits of the matter, siSince any may influence the mind of the executing Court %\ 5 While disposing of the executing Court. / claim and stay petitions filed by the petitioners before the S- In the above viv/ew of the matter, this Civil petitioners to executing Court. There shall Revision Petition i pursue the claim and dismissed /s granting liberty to the petitions filed before the stay be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall Stand closed. //true copy// To, section officer 1- The Pdncipal Junior ^cords) . C'vil Judge. (Junior Division) Vizianagaram uPuri, Advocate [OPUC] (with 2. Oneccto 3- Two GO Copies .Sri Harinadh ;^jdam MKP vna HIGH COURT DATED:26/06/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 1618 OF 2025 DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS