APHC010306072024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: 1. VERIBOYINA HARI KRISHNA, ABOUT 49 YEARS, GAYATHRI NAGAR, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 1. SHAIK RASOOL BEE DIED, S 2. SHAIK CHAND BASHA DIED, 3. SHAIK KHADAR SHAFEE, S/O.LATE JANI SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 4. SHAIK MOHAMMAD RAFI, S/O.LATE JANI SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 5. SHAIK MOHAMMAD ALI, S/O. LATE JANI SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. 6. SHAIK ABDUDEKAR, S/O.LATE JANI SAHEB, AGED YEARS 7. SK SHAKEELA, W/O. LATE SHAIK CHAND BASHA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. 8. SHAIK SADIYA, D/O.LATE SHAIK CHAND BASHA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1614/2024 VERIBOYINA HARI KRISHNA, S/O. LATE BALA RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O. AT D.N0.26-1-16/A, 1ST STREET, GAYATHRI NAGAR, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND SHAIK RASOOL BEE DIED, S SHAIK CHAND BASHA DIED, S SHAIK KHADAR SHAFEE, S/O.LATE JANI SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 42 SHAIK MOHAMMAD RAFI, S/O.LATE JANI SAHEB, AGED ABOUT SHAIK MOHAMMAD ALI, S/O. LATE JANI SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 33 SHAIK ABDUDEKAR, S/O.LATE JANI SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 30 SK SHAKEELA, W/O. LATE SHAIK CHAND BASHA, AGED ABOUT SHAIK SADIYA, D/O.LATE SHAIK CHAND BASHA, AGED ABOUT 21 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] RAMAIAH, AGED 16/A, 1ST STREET, GAYATHRI NAGAR, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER SHAIK KHADAR SHAFEE, S/O.LATE JANI SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 42 SHAIK MOHAMMAD RAFI, S/O.LATE JANI SAHEB, AGED ABOUT SHAIK MOHAMMAD ALI, S/O. LATE JANI SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 33 ABOUT 30 SK SHAKEELA, W/O. LATE SHAIK CHAND BASHA, AGED ABOUT SHAIK SADIYA, D/O.LATE SHAIK CHAND BASHA, AGED ABOUT 21 2 VS, J C.R.P.No.1614 of 2024 9. SHAIK HADIYA, D/O. LATE SHAIK CHAND BASH, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS. 10. SHAIK AZEEZ, S/O.LATE SHAIK CHAND BASHA, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS 11. SHAIK ABDUL AZEEM, S/O. LATE SHAIK CHAND BASHA, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, (10TH AND 11TH RESPONDENTS ARE BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND, GUARDIAN AND MOTHER I.E., SK. SHAKEELA ) (ALL RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDING AT DR.NO. 2-7, NARASINGHARAOPETA, GUDURU, SPSR NELLORE 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 to The above named petitioner begs to present the above Revision Petition in this Hon’ble Court aggrieved by the Decree and Order dt-30-04- 2024 in I.A.No.326 of 2024 in O.S.No.170 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District for the following among other- IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.170 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Nellore, S.P.S.R.Nellore District, pending disposal of the above Revision Petition in this Hon’ble Court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ASHOK KONDETI 2. 3 VS, J C.R.P.No.1614 of 2024 The Court made the following Order: The petitioner/defendant No.22 preferred the present Civil Revision Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 30.04.2024 passed in I.A.No.326 of 2024 in O.S.No.170 of 2016 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge, Nellore, whereby the trial Court dismissed the petition filed under Sections 94 (e) and 151 and Order IX Rule 7, Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside the ex-parte order dated 28.10.2016 passed against him and permit him to file his written statement and contest the case on merits. 2. The revision petitioner herein is Defendant No.22 and respondents herein are the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No.893 of 2010 before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore which was dismissed after trial on 11.04.2016. Against the said decree and judgment, the plaintiffs preferred appeal in A.S.No.165 of 2016, on the file of Principal District Judge, Nellore, and the same was also dismissed on merits. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed the present suit O.S.No.170 of 2016 against the revision petitioner herein, who is Defendant No.22 and others and an ex-parte decree was passed on 28.10.2016 against the revision petitioner herein. Thereafter, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.326 of 2024 in O.S.No.170 of 2016 under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 94 (e) of CPC seeking to set aside the ex parte order dated 28.10.2016 and permit him to file his written statement and contest the 4 VS, J C.R.P.No.1614 of 2024 case. The said petition was dismissed on 30.04.2024. Assailing the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed. 3. Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ashok Kondeti, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Court below grossly erred in observing that the contesting parties are only defendants 27 to 31 ignoring that the plaintiffs sought relief against defendants 1 to 26 and 32 to 46 in the suit. He submits that the Court below grossly erred in observing that the revision petitioner/Defendant No.22 is aware of the delay and pendency of the other suits and he is appearing. He submits that since the present suit is comprehensive suit and other connected suits O.S.No.770 of 2007, O.S.No.893 of 2010, A.S.No.165 of 2016 and LAOP No.278 of 2009 are pending, if any, relief granted in the present suit i.e., O.S.No.170 of 2016 without giving opportunity to the revision petitioner herein would vitiate the result in the said suits, requested to allow the present revision. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order of the Court below in all respects and requested to dismiss the revision. 6. As seen from the material on record, it appears that in fact, earlier, the plaintiffs, filed O.S.No.893 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore which was dismissed on 11.04.2016 and as against the said judgment, they preferred appeal in A.S.No.165 of 2016 which was also 5 VS, J C.R.P.No.1614 of 2024 dismissed on merits. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.170 of 2016 against the revision petitioner herein and others stating that in view of pendency of L.A.O.P.No.278 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, they filed the suit and they are not claiming any property of the revision petitioner which was purchased by him from defendant Nos.18 to 20 and others, which was the subject matter in O.S.No.770 of 2007. Believing the same, the revision petitioner had never made any efforts to contest the matter but in course of time, he came to know that an ex-parte decree was passed against him and the plaintiffs are making efforts to grab his property. 7. As seen from the counter filed by the plaintiffs in I.A.No.326 of 2024, the revision petitioner has already sold the property to defendant No.23 and now the revision petitioner has no subsisting interest in the subject matter of the suit and that the defendant No.23 already filed his written statement and cross examined P.W-1. 8. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Court below dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner herein on the ground that an ex parte decree was passed on 28.10.2016, after lapse of nearly 8 years from the date of the order, the revision petitioner filed the present petition seeking to set aside the ex parte order. The Court below further held that the contention of the revision petitioner that he has knowledge about the proceedings, but at the request of the plaintiffs, he did not enter appearance 6 VS, J C.R.P.No.1614 of 2024 in the suit is not believable. In fact, he has knowledge about the suit proceedings and the proceedings in other suits and appeals. In such a case, he should be vigilant to proceed in the present suit also. Further, as per the counter averments filed by plaintiff No.3, the property was already sold by the revision petitioner and that the matter is at the fag end and the petitioner filed the present petition after completion of plaintiffs evidence. The present suit is posted to defendants side evidence on 29.12.2025. At that stage, the revision petitioner, without showing his bona fides and without assigning proper reasons for the delay in preferring the present application, filed the present petition in order to drag on the proceedings. 9. In the light of the circumstances stated above and considering the stage of the suit and also the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the revision petitioner miserably failed to show his bona fides in filing the present petition after lapse of nearly 8 years and the reasons assigned by the revision petitioner are not convincing and believable and the findings given by the Court below in dismissing the petition filed for setting aside the ex parte order dated 28.10.2016 are just, reasonable and well founded and the same do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court, and hence, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 7 VS, J C.R.P.No.1614 of 2024 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the order dated 30.04.2024 passed in I.A.No.326 of 2024 in O.S.No.170 of 2016 by the I Additional District Judge, Nellore. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 19.12.2025 JLSR 8 VS, J C.R.P.No.1614 of 2024