APHC010627842025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] SATURDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3694/2025 Between: 1. ROUTHU GURUMURTHY, S/O PYDANNA, AGED 55 YEARS, R/AT D.NO. 19-520/3, DARAPALEM, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SABBELLA PANASA REDDY, S/O NARAYANA REDDY, AGED 43 YEARS. BUSINESS, D.NO.45-46-22, P.R.K RATNAMURTHY HEIGHTS, FLAT NO. 103, SRINIVASA NAGAR, AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. SMT SABBELLA BHAGYA SATYAVATHI, W/O PANASA REDDY, AGED 35 YEARS. BUSINESS, D.NO.45-46-22, P.R.K RATNAMURTHY HEIGHTS, FLAT NO. 103, SRINIVASA NAGAR, AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. SMT CHINTAM RAMANA, W/O SRINU, AGED 36 YEARS R/AT D.NO. 19-520/6, DARAPALEM, MUDASARLOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...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 toplease to allow the C.R.P. by setting aside the Order dated 06.10.2025 passed in E.A. No. 142/2025 in E.P. No. 66/2025 in O.S. No. 414/2021 on the file of the VI Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam and pass 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 grant Stay of all further proceedings in E.P. No. 66 of 2025 in O.S. No. 414 of 2021 on the file of the VI Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PILLI SUNDEEP Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3694/2025 ORDER: Heard Sri B.Somasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is 2nd Judgment Debtor. O.S.No.414 of 2021 was filed by the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 and 2 for recovery of money and it was decreed on 06.05.2022 against defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit. Respondent No.3 herein was defendant No.1. Defendant No.2/petitioner filed petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. in I.A.No.371 of 2022 and the same was allowed on 26.04.2024 setting aside the ex-parte decree subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/- to the plaintiffs on or before 20.06.2024. The matter was got adjourned from time to time. For four times time was granted for payment of costs but the costs was not paid. So, by order dated 23.08.2024 I.A.No.371 of 2022 was dismissed. The petitioner again filed I.A.No.421 of 2025 to set aside the order dated 23.08.2024 passed in I.A.No.371 of 2022 also for condoning the delay of 308 days. I.A.No.421 of 2025 along with the accompanying applications were rejected with costs by order dated 06.10.2025 by the VI Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam. 3. The plaintiffs/decree holders had filed E.P.No.6 of 2025 for execution of decree passed in O.S.No.414 of 2021. In the said case, the petitioner filed E.A.No.142 of 2025 to stay the proceedings of the execution case. The same 4 has been dismissed by order dated 06.10.2025 and challenging this order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the Judgment Debtor No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was some collusion between decree holders and respondent No.3/first judgment debtor and so the decree dated 06.05.2022 came to be passed. 5. In the present C.R.P. impugned order is dated 06.10.2025. So far as that order is concerned, this Court do not find any reason to stall execution proceedings. The reason is obvious. The decree was passed against the petitioner. The application to set aside the ex-parte order was allowed on payment of costs, but the costs was not paid in-spite of various opportunities. So, the application I.A.No.371 of 2022 was dismissed. The applications filed for setting aside the order of dismissal of I.A.No.371 of 2022 was also dismissed. Consequently, this Court does not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned order passed in E.P. not to stay the execution proceedings. The order of the Execution Court does not suffer from any illegality. 6. The Civil Revision Petition has no merits and is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Dated: 20.12.2025 TPS 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3694/2025 Dated: 20.12.2025 TPS