APHC010445142025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] SATURDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 2351 OF 2025, 2363 OF 2025 & 2476 OF 2025 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2351 OF 2025 Between: 1. POTTA SIVA PRASAD, S/O. VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.1-358-D, 1ST WARD, VINAYAKA NAGAR, THIPPALURU, YERRAGUNTLA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER A N D 1. KADIRI BALA KULLAYI REDDY, S/O.GANGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.6/174-B, RAMALAYAM STREET, YERRAGUNTIA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. POTTA VENKATA SWAMY, S/O. VENKATAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.1-358-D 1ST WARD, VINAYAKA NAGAR, THIPPALURU, YERRAGUNTLA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 3. POTTASUDHARSHAN, S/O. VENKATASAMY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.1-358-D 1ST WARD, VINAYAKA NAGAR, THIPPALURU, YERRAGUNTLA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. POTTA PADMAVATHI, W/O.SUDHARSHAN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEAS, RESIDING AT D.NO.1-358-D, 1ST WARD, VINAYAKA NAGAR, THIPPALURU, YERRAGUNTLA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 5. POTTA VENKATA SIVA, S/O.VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.1-358-D 1ST WARD, VINAYAKA NAGAR, THIPPALURU, YERRAGUNTLA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the SRK, J CRP Nos.2351, 2363 & 2476 of 2025 2 High Court may be pleased to allow this CRP by setting aside the order dated 15-07-2024 passed in I.A. No. 319 of 2024 in I.A. no. 24 of 2021 in O.S. No. 64 of 2019 on the file of Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram and consequently restore the I.A. No. 24 of 2021 in O.S. No. 64 of 2019 on the file of Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram and pass IA 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 condone the delay of 296 days in filing the civil revision petition against the order dated 15-07-2024 passed in I.A. No. 319 of 2024 in I.A. no. 24 of 2021 in O.S. No. 64 of 2019 on the file of Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram and to pass IA 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in E.P. No. 2 of 2021 in O.S. No. 64 of 2019 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V NITESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Annareddy Chandrasekhar Reddy CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2363 OF 2025 Between: 1. POTTA VENKATA SWAMY, S/O. VENKATAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.1-358-D 1ST WARD, VINAYAKA NAGAR, THIPPALURU, YERRAGUNTLA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. POTTA VENKATA SIVA, , S/O.VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.1-358-D 1ST WARD, VINAYAKA NAGAR, THIPPALURU, YERRAGUNTLA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) A N D SRK, J CRP Nos.2351, 2363 & 2476 of 2025 3 1. KADIRI BALA KULLAYI REDDY, S/O.GANGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.6/174-B, RAMALAYAM STREET, YERRAGUNTIA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. POTTASUDHARSHAN, S/O. VENKATASAMY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.1-358-D 1ST WARD, VINAYAKA NAGAR, THIPPALURU, YERRAGUNTLA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 3. POTTA PADMAVATHI, , W/O. SUDHARSHAN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEAS, RESIDING AT D.NO.1-358-D 1ST WARD, VINAYAKA NAGAR, THIPPALURU, YERRAGUNTLA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. POTTA SIVA PRASAD, S/O. VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.1-358-D, 1ST WARD, VINAYAKA NAGAR, THIPPALURU, YERRAGUNTLA MANDAL, KADAPA 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 allow this CRP by setting aside the order dated 15-07-2024 passed in I.A. No. 266 of 2024 in I.A. no. 11 of 2021 in O.S. No. 64 of 2019 on the file of Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram and consequently restore the I.A. No. 11 of 2021 in O.S. No. 64 of 2019 on the file of Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram and pass IA 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 condone the delay of 296 days in filing the civil revision petition against the order dated 15-07-2024 passed in I.A. No. 266 of 2024 in I.A. no. 11 of 2021 in O.S. No. 64 of 2019 on the file of Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram and to pass IA 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in E.R No. 2 of 2021 in O.S. No. 64 of 2019 on the file of Hon’ble Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition and pass SRK, J CRP Nos.2351, 2363 & 2476 of 2025 4 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K DEVANATH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Annareddy Chandrasekhar Reddy CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2476/2025 Between: 1. POTTA SIVA PRASAD, S/O. VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.1-358-D, 1ST WARD, VIJAYAKA NAGAR, THIPPALURU, YERRAGUNTIA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER A N D 1. KADIRI BALA KULLAYI REDDY, S/O.GANGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.6/174-B, RAMALAYAM STREET, YERRAGUNTLA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. POTTA VENKATA SWAMY, S/O. VENKATAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.1-358-D, 1ST WARD, VIJAYAKA NAGAR, THIPPALURU, YERRAGUNTIA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 3. POTTASUDHARSHAN, S/O. VENKATASAMY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.1-358-D, 1ST WARD, VIJAYAKA NAGAR, THIPPALURU, YERRAGUNTIA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. POTTA PADMAVATHI, W/O. SUDHARSHAN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEAS, RESIDING AT D.NO.1-358-D, 1ST WARD, VIJAYAKA NAGAR, THIPPALURU, YERRAGUNTIA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 5. POTTA VENKATA SIVA, S/O.VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.1-358-D 1ST WARD, VIJAYAKA NAGAR, THIPPALURU, YERRAGUNTLA MANDAL, KADAPA 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 allow this CRP by setting aside the order dated 15-07-2024 passed in passed in E.A. No. 76 of 2022 in E.P. No. 2 of 2021 in O.S. No. 64 of 2019 on the file of junior civil judge-cum-judicial magistrate of first class kamalapuram and pass SRK, J CRP Nos.2351, 2363 & 2476 of 2025 5 IA 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 condone the delay of 296 days in filing the civil revision petition against the order dated 15-07-2024 passed in E.A. No.76 of 2022 in E.P. No. 2 of 2021 in O.S. No. 64 of 2019 on the file of junior civil judge-cum-judicial magistrate of first class:: kamalapuram and to pass IA 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in E.P. No. 2 of 2021 in O.S. No. 64 of 2019 on the file of junior civil judge-cum-judicial magistrate of first class:: kamalapuram pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V NITESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Annareddy Chandrasekhar Reddy The Court made the following: SRK, J CRP Nos.2351, 2363 & 2476 of 2025 6 C O M M O N O R D E R: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff in all the Revision Petitions. Perused the entire material available on record. 2. Since the parties and the contentions and rival contentions are one and the same and further, the point involved in all the Civil Revision Petitions is also one and the same, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of, by this Common Order. 3. Civil Revision Petition Nos.2351 of 2025 and 2476 of 2025, filed by the petitioner/D4, arise out of the Orders, dated 15.07.2024 passed in I.A.No.319 of 2024 in I.A.No.24 of 2021 in O.S.No.64 of 2019 and E.A.No.76 of 2022 in E.P.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.64 of 2019, by the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the trial Court’), wherein and whereunder, applications filed under Order IX and Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity ‘CPC’) to restore I.A.No.241 of 2021 and under Order XXI Rules 26 and 29 read with Section 151 of CPC to stay of all proceedings in E.P.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.64 of 2019, were dismissed and closed, respectively. Whereas, CRP No.2363 of 2025, filed by petitioners/D1 and D5, arises out of the Order, dated 15.07.2024 passed in I.A.No.266 of 2024 in I.A.No.11 of 2021 in SRK, J CRP Nos.2351, 2363 & 2476 of 2025 7 O.S.No.64 of 2019 by the trial Court, wherein and whereunder, application under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC to restore I.A.No.11 of 2021 in O.S.No.64 of 2019, was dismissed. 4. Parties in the present Revision Petitions are hereinafter referred to, as they were arrayed before the trial Court. 5. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed O.S.No.64 of 2019 against the defendant Nos.1 to 5 for the reliefs of (i) declaration of title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule items and to direct the defendants to deliver the vacant possession of the schedule items to the plaintiff and in case of failure of defendants to do so, to get the same done through due process of law; (ii) to direct the defendant Nos.1 to 5 to pay Rs.13,000/- per month to the plaintiff for illegal usage and occupation of schedule items till they are evicted and (iii) for the relief of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 5 and their men, agents from alienating the property and for costs. 6. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 remained ex parte in the suit and as the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 remained unchallenged, the suit was decreed on 13.12.2019,in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants, as prayed for. SRK, J CRP Nos.2351, 2363 & 2476 of 2025 8 7. Having come to know about ex parte decree, dated 13.12.2019, D.1, D5 filed I.A.Nos.11 of 2021 and D4 filed I.A.No.24 of 2021 under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, praying the Court to set- aside the ex parte decree, dated 13.12.2019 passed in O.S.No.64 of 2019 and D4 filed E.A.No.76 of 2022 in E.P.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.64 of 2019 under Order XXI Rule 26 and 29 read with Section 151 of CPC to grant stay of all proceedings in E.P.No.2 of 2021. 8. 8. Vide Order, dated 01.03.2024, the trial Court dismissed I.A.Nos.11 of 2021 and 24 of 2021 for non-appearance of D1, D5 and D4, on the ground that D1, D5 and D4 and their counsel did not turn up even though the matter was called for several times from 10.30 a.m., to 2.00 p.m., and from 2.30 p.m., to 5.00 p.m. 9. Aggrieved by the said Order, dated 01.03.2024, petitioners/D1 and D5 in CRP No.2363 of 2025 filed I.A.No.266 of 2024, petitioner/D4 in CRP No.2351 of 2025 filed I.A.No.319 of 2024 under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC praying the Court to set-aside the dismissal order, dated 01.03.2024. Petitioner/D4 in CRP No.2476 of 2025 also filed E.A.No.76 of 2022 under Order XXI Rules 26 and 29 read with Section 151 CPC to grant stay of all SRK, J CRP Nos.2351, 2363 & 2476 of 2025 9 proceedings in E.P.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.64 of 2019 on the file of the trial Court, till the disposal of I.A.Nos.319 and 266 of 2024 in O.S.No.64 of 2019 by the trial Court. 10. Vide Order, dated 15.07.2024, the trial Court dismissed I.A.Nos.319 and 266 of 2024 in O.S.No.64 of 2019 on the ground that there was willful negligence on the part of D1, D5 and D4 in proceeding with the matters and they are trying to drag the suit proceedings. Since I.A.Nos.319 and 266 of 2024 are dismissed, consequently, the trial Court closed E.A.No.76 of 2022. Aggrieved by the said impugned orders, the present Revision Petitions are filed. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5 filed written statements along with I.A.Nos.11 of 2021 and 24 of 2021, which are filed under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, which clearly indicates that the petitioners are having interest to proceed with the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further contend that non-appearance of either the petitioners or their counsel on 01.03.2024 is neither willful nor intentional and prays the Court to give one opportunity to contest the suit. SRK, J CRP Nos.2351, 2363 & 2476 of 2025 10 12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff would contend that the petitioners/defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5 were not diligent enough in proceeding with their case, and with an intention to drag on the proceedings, they are filing frivolous applications one after another. Learned counsel would further contend that no proof or document was filed by the petitioners to substantiate contention that their non-appearance before the trial Court is only due to medical need. 13. Indisputably, the Judgment and Decree, dated 13.12.2019, passed by the trial Court is an ex parte one. The suit was filed in the year 2019 and by the end of the year 2019, the suit was decreed ex parte. A perusal of the plaint filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.64 of 2019 goes to show that he filed the said suit for the relief of declaration of title, recover of possession and to pay a sum of Rs.13,000/- per month to the plaintiff for illegal usage and occupation of schedule property and consequential relief of Permanent Injunction. 14. Undoubtedly, in order to prove the case of plaintiff, he adduced oral evidence besides exhibiting Exs.A1 to A11 documents, which remained unchallenged, as the defendants remained ex parte. Indeed, the defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5 filed SRK, J CRP Nos.2351, 2363 & 2476 of 2025 11 I.A.Nos.11 of 2021 and 24 of 2021 under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC to set-aside the ex parte decree, dated 13.12.2019. Vide Order, dated 01.03.2024 the trial Court dismissed those applications on the ground that D1, D5 and D4 did not evince any interest to proceed with the applications, as neither the D1, D5 and D4 nor the counsel turned up and no stay was pending. 15. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5 filed I.A.No.266 of 2024 and 319 of 2024 under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC seeking to restore the I.A.Nos.11 of 2021 and 24 of 2021 and also filed E.A.No.76 of 2022 in E.P.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.64 of 2019 to grant stay of all further proceedings in the EP till the disposal of I.A.Nos.266 of 2024 and 319 of 2024. Vide Order, dated 15.07.2024, the trial Court dismissed I.A.Nos.266 of 2024 and 319 of 2024 on the ground that the petitioners did not file proof showing that they were suffering from ailment and came to a conclusion that there is willful negligence on the part of the D1, D5 and D4 in proceeding with the matter. 16. Apparently, the defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5 did not file any proof in respect of their ailment, because of which, they could not make their appearance before the trial Court on 01.03.2024. But, it has to be seen that, the defendant No.4 filed his written SRK, J CRP Nos.2351, 2363 & 2476 of 2025 12 statement. No doubt, the defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5 though filed applications under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, did not make their appearance, resulting which, the applications filed by them, were dismissed by the trial Court. Challenging the same, defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5 filed I.A.Nos.266 and 319 of 2024 under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC. Indisputably, the suit involves substantive property rights of the parties, and as such, the trial Court ought to have given an opportunity to the defendants to contest the suit. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that one opportunity can be provided to the defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5 by setting-aside the Order, dated 15.07.2024 passed in I.A.No.266 of 2024 in I.A.No.11 of 2021 and I.A.No.319 of 2024 in I.A.No.24 of 2021 and E.A.No.76 of 2022 in E.P.No.21 of 2021, in O.S.No.64 of 2019 for adjudication of the real controversy in the suit on merits. 17. Accordingly, Orders, dated 15.07.2024 passed in I.A.No.319 of 2024 in I.A.No.24 of 2021 and I.A.No.266 of 2024 in I.A.No.11 of 2021, in O.S.No.64 of 2019 by the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram, are set-aside. Consequently, I.A.No.319 of 2024 and I.A.No.266 of 2024 in O.S.No.64 of 2019 stand allowed. SRK, J CRP Nos.2351, 2363 & 2476 of 2025 13 Defendant Nos.1, 5 and 4 are directed that they shall advance their respective arguments in I.A.No.24 of 2021 and I.A.No.11 of 2021, in O.S.No.64 of 2019 and shall not seek any further adjournment before the trial Court and shall cooperate with the trial Court for its disposal at the earliest. Learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram shall give an opportunity to both parties for advancing their arguments in the aforesaid applications. 18. While coming to the Order, dated 15.07.2024 passed in E.A.No.76 of 2022 in E.P.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.64 of 2019 by the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram, this Court is of the opinion that since the applications vide I.A.Nos.24 of 2021 and 11 of 2021 in O.S.No.64 of 2019 are to be adjudicated by the trial Court, the petitioner herein/D4 in CRP No.2476 of 2025 is at liberty to move the appropriate application before the trial Court, subject to the outcome of the I.A.No.24 of 2021 and I.A.No.11 of 2021, in O.S.No.64 of 2019. 19. Accordingly, with the above directions, CRP Nos.2351 of 2025 and 2363 of 2025 are allowed and CRP No.2476 of 2025 is disposed of. SRK, J CRP Nos.2351, 2363 & 2476 of 2025 14 There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand closed. JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 22nd November, 2025. DNB