1 APHC010225562025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1192 OF 2025 Between: 1. M KANAKAMMA, W/O LATE M.SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, HINDU, CULTIVATION, RESIDING AT BANGARUPALYAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. M S SIVA PRASAD, S/O LATE M.SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, HINDU, RETIRED EMPLOYEE, R/O. D. NO. 14- 1229/A, RAM NAGAR COLONY ROAD, CHITTOOR 2. M S RAJENDRA PRASAD, S/O LATE M.SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, HINDU, CULTIVATION, 3. M R SINDHU, W/O T. BHARATH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, HINDU, DOCTOR 4. M R SWETHA, D/O. M.S.RAJENDRA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, HINDU, EMPLOYEE. RESPONDENT NOS. 2 TO 4 ARE R/O. RAJA STREET, BANGARUPALYAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR.4 5. G VIDYASAGAR, S/O. G. KRISHNALAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, HINDU, BUSINESS AT D. NO. 2-309- N, S.V. 2 NAGAR, MADANAPALLI TOWN, CHITTOOR. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VARUN BYREDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KANAKALA DEVI PRASANNAKUMAR 2. P RAJASEKHAR 3 The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner, an octogenarian, filed the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the non-disposal of O.S.No.25 of 2019 filed by her on the file of the Court of IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor. 2) Heard Mr.Varun Byreddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.K.Devi Prasana Kumar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Mr.P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions to the effect that the petitioner is constrained to file the present revision petition as the suit filed by her in the year 2019 is not progressing much and she is in the evening of life. He submits that the defendants are one way or the other protracting the matter and, therefore, unless a direction is issued for disposal of the suit expeditiously, the petitioner will suffer serious prejudice and irreparable loss. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent made submissions by drawing attention of this Court to the counter affidavit. He submits that the petitioner / 4 plaintiff filed two applications, whereas the defendants and some third parties / purchasers filed four miscellaneous applications, they are ready in the said applications to advance arguments. However, the petitioner is not cooperating for disposal of the said IAs and unless the said applications are disposed of, the learned Trial Court cannot be proceeded to deal with the main suit. He also submits that in fact, the suit is collusive in nature and the relevant details in this regard are set out in the counter affidavit. He further contended that the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have to be exercised sparingly. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel urges for dismissal of the revision petition. 5) The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supported the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 6) This Court has considered the submissions made. There is no dispute about the submission made by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have to be exercised sparingly, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the given case. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein is aged about 86 5 years. Irrespective of the merits or otherwise of the suit instituted by the petitioner, the request made for it’s early disposal, taking the age of the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, may be considered. 7) Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the revision petition, providing that the learned Trial Court shall take up the pending miscellaneous applications and decide the same in accordance with law, duly affording an opportunity to the parties therein, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court shall make an endeavour to disposal of the main suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight (08) months. It is needless to observe that it is open to the parties to make their respective submissions in the Miscellaneous Applications, as also in the suit. 8) With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. 6 9) Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed. ________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date: 07.11.2025 Ssv 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1192 of 2025 Date: 07.11.2025 Ssv