APHC010584932025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN/AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3070/2025 Between: 1. CHERUKOORI BALA RAJU, S/O KANNA BABU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. NO OCCUPATION, R/O MUTCHERLA VILLAGE, GIDIJALA POST, ANANDAPURAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, A.P ...PETITIONER AND 1. BANDI MAHESH, S/o Late Chellayya, Aged about 55 years, R/o D.No. 17-130, Bharat Nagar, Prahladapuram, Visakhapatnann-27, A.P ...RESPONDENT 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 Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition against the Order dt.03-01-2023 passed in E.P.No.75 of 2021 in O.S.No.1023 of 2016 by allowing the E.P and issued Arrest Warrant U/o-XXI Rule-38, CPC on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam District. 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 859 day in filing the above CRP and pass 2 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 order to stay of all further proceedings in EP no 75 of 2021 in OS no 1023 of 2016 on the file of II Addl senior Civil judge visakhapatnam district including arrest warrant stood against me disposal main CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K J V N PUNDAREEKAKSHUDU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Heard Ms.K.T.Sudha Sree, learned counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition under Section 115 of CPC has been filed by the defendant/judgment debtor being aggrieved from the order passed by the Execution Court in E.P.No.75 of 2021 in O.S.No.1023 of 2016 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, for execution of the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. The order under challenge is dated 03.01.2023. The Civil Revision Petition is highly barred by limitation. 3. Article 131 of the Limitation Act, 1963, prescribes a period of 90 days for filing a Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC in High Court. 4. I.A.No.1 of 2025 has been filed to condone the delay of 859 days. However, after going through the contents of the affidavit, in support of the application, I find that the cause shown is not sufficient. 5. In paragraph No.4 of the said application, it has been stated that the delay is purely inadvertent and unintentional and occurred solely due to the procedural formalities. 6. This Court is not satisfied with the reason assigned. In fact, no reason has been assigned much less sufficient reason. 7. I.A.No.1 of 2025 is rejected. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 is also rejected as barred by limitation. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J Date: 21st November, 2025 RKS