APHC010609782025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] SATURDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3244/2025 Between: 1. NAGA ANJESWARA RAO, S/O LATE P.PANCHAMUKESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. RESIDENT OF POORNA MARKET, VISAKHAPTANAM (DIED). 2. D.NAGAMANI,, WO D.DAMODARA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. RESIDENT OF SEETHAMMDHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2 3. K.DHANA LAKSHMI, W/O LATE K.HARINATHA BABU HINDU, AGED ABOUT RESIDENT OF AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. P.LAKSHMI,, W/O P.NAGA ANJESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. RESIDENT OF POORNA MARKET, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. VENKHATA VARAHA SUNEEL,, SO LATE V.V.SWAMY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDENT OF AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. LINGAM AMARESWARI, W/O. L.PRATAP KUMAR, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. RESIDENT OF AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 7. VALLURI NAGA POORNIMA, D/O. LATE V.V.SWAMY HINDU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDENT OF AKKAYYAPALEM VISAKHAPATNAM. 2 8. VALLURI KRISHNA PRIYA, D/O LATE V.V.SWAMY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. RESIDENT OF AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 9. PUPPALA LAKSHMI,, W/O P.NAGA ANJESWARA RAO HINDU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE. RESIDENT OF D.NO. 12-1-70, MAIN ROAD, ANAKAPALLI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 10. PUPPALA VARAHA VENKHATA SATYA ESWAR KUMAR, S/O. P.NAGA ANJESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. RESIDENT OF AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 11. PUPPALA NAGA GANESH AYYANNA, S/O. P.NAGA ANJESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. RESIDENT OF AKKAYYAPALEM.VISAKHAPATNAM. 12. PUPPALA KANAKA KRISHNA VENI, W/O. SHYAM KUMAR, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. RESIDENT OF HEMA PARADISE, FLAT NO.505, SANTHI NAGAR, NAD KOTHA ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM. (ALL THE ABOVE NAMED DECREE HOLDERS WERE REPRESENTED BY THEIR G.P.A HOLDER SRI.K.RAMA RAO S/O LATE RAMA SWAMY, AGED 67 YEARS. MANAGING PARTNER M/S SRI UDAYABHANU ASSOCIATES HAVING OFFICE AT 101, VINAGAR AVENUE GANGAPUR LAY OUT, VISAKHAPATNAM.) ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. MANCHUKONDA VENKATA JAGANNADAM, S/O. LATE SATYANARAYANA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, BUSINESS. RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 25-8-22, MAIN ROAD, KURPA MARKET VISAKHAPATNAM-1. 2. YERRABATHULA UDAY BHASKAR REDDY, S/O. VENKATA. REDDY, HINDU, AGED NOT KNOWN R/O. DOOR NO.4-23, NAAYANAPALI VILLAGE, KOLIMIGUDLA 3 MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. Y VENKATA RAMI REDDY, S/O. CHINNA PULLA REDDY, HINDU, AGED NOT KNOWN, R/O. DOOR NO.4-23, NAAYANAPALLI VILLAGE, KOLIMIGUDLA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. KUMMATI BALA ROSI REDDY, S/O. LINGA REDDY, HINDU, AGED NOT KNOWN, R/O. DOOR NO.4-57, BATHULUPADA VILLAGE, BANAGANAPALLI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 5. AMBATI VENKATA RAMI REDDY, S/O. GANGI REDDY, HINDU, AGED NOT KNOWN, R/O. DOOR NO. 1-118, RAGHAVA RAO PALLI VILLAGE KURNOOL DISTRICT. 6. GANDLA PULLAYYA, S/O. G. VIRRAYYA, HINDU, AGED NOT KNOWN, R/O. DOOR NO. 10-596/2/10, K.D.C.M.N. STREET, KOLIMIGUDLA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 7. SARADHI ESWARI, WO. S.V. KAMALAKARA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O. AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ORDER: Heard Sri V.R.N.Prashanth, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure(in short ‘C.P.C’) by the 4 plaintiffs/decree holders. They filed O.S.No.1563 of 2009 against the defendants/respondents, which was decreed with costs by granting permanent injunction restraining them from ever interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The suit was decreed on 17.07.2014 and challenging the same, the defendants/ respondents filed a time barred appeal, in which the application for condonation of delay was rejected by order dated 08.04.2024 by the learned District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 3. The defendants, in violation of the decree, tried to interfere with the possession. The plaintiffs filed E.P.No.303 of 2019, in which the order was passed by the Execution Court on 13.07.2023 allowing the petition and issuing the arrest warrant under Order XXI Rule 32 C.P.C. Challenging the same, the defendants filed C.R.P.No.1763 of 2023, in which pursuant to the direction dated 24.07.2023, they filed the affidavit giving undertaking that they would not interfere with the possession of the E.P. schedule property in terms of the decree passed in the suit. Recording the said undertaking, the Civil Revision Petition 5 No.1763 of 2023 was disposed of on 28.07.2023 by recalling the warrant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in spite of the aforesaid, the defendants again tried to interfere and consequently, E.A.No.95 of 2024 in E.P.No.303 of 2019 was filed by the plaintiffs/decree holders. In the said application, the defendants filed E.A.No.24 of 2025, requesting the Court to receive certain documents, as mentioned in the petition schedule. In spite of the objections filed by the plaintiffs, the said application has been partly allowed vide order dated 23.09.2025 by receiving documents 1 to 4 but rejecting the document No.5, subject to relevancy, proof and admissibility. 5. Challenging the order dated 23.09.2025, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Execution Court ought not to have allowed the application and even the documents 1 to 4 should not have been received. 7. On consideration of the facts and the submissions advanced, at this stage, this Court is of the view that by the order under challenge, only the application to receive the documents 1 6 to 4 has been allowed and subject to the relevancy, proof and admissibility and so, I do not find any jurisdictional error in passing the order. 8. Once, the documents have been allowed, the petitioners will have the right to file the documents in rebuttal and may also argue on the relevancy and admissibility of those documents. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, that right has not been given under the impugned order. Even if that right has not been expressly given under the impugned order, the petitioners will have the right available under law, also in consonance with the principles of natural justice. 10. This Court is also of the considered view that the impugned order does not amount to a ‘case decided’ within the meaning of Section 115 C.P.C so as to invoke the revisional jurisdiction. 11. There is no illegality in the impugned order. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. _____________________ 7 RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date: 22.11.2025 Pab 8 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3244 of 2025 Date:- 22.11.2025 Pab