1 APHC010097602025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 663/2025 Between: Naramamidi Sai Venkata Nagamani ...PETITIONER AND Balina Durga Ramesh ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VUNDAVALLI JAGADISH VC Counsel for the Respondent: 1. B CHANDRA SHEKHAR 2 The Court made the following ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred challenging the order dated 31.01.2024 passed in I.A.No.329 of 2023 in A.S.No.33 of by the III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 2. Initially, O.S.No.272 of 2014 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 28.03.2012 or, in the alternative, for a refund of the advance amount with interest. The trial Court by its judgment dated 26.04.2023 decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, directing the petitioner herein to refund Rs.5,02,075/- with interest and creating a charge over the plaint schedule property. 3. Challenging the judgment and decree, the petitioner/defendant filed A.S.No.33 of 2023 before the Court of III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram. In the said appeal the petitioner/defendant also filed I.A.No.329 of 2023 seeking stay of execution of decree as the respondent has already filed E.P.No.41 of 2023 in O.S.No.272 of 2014 before the Senior Civil Judge Court, Bhimavaram. Vide orders dated 31.01.2024, stay was granted only for the sale of the E.P. schedule property on the condition that the petitioner shall deposit half of the decretal amount of Rs.5,02,075/- before the trial Court on or before 28.02.2025, failing which the stay shall stand vacated without recourse 3 to extension of time. Challenging the condition imposed by the Court below, the present revision petition is preferred seeking modification of the impugned order. 4. Heard Sri V.C.Vundavalli Jagadish learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Chandra Shekhar, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Admittedly, an order dated 31.01.2024 was passed by learned III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram in I.A.No.329 of 2023 filed by the petitioner herein in A.S.No.33 of 2023 granting stay only for the sale of E.P. schedule property in execution of the decree dated 26.04.2023 in E.P.No.41 of 2023 in O.S.No.272 of 2014 by Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram on the condition that the petitioner herein shall deposit half of the decretal amount i.e., alternative relief amount of Rs.5,02,075/- before the trial Court on or before 28.02.2024, failing which, the stay order shall stand vacated without the recourse for extension of time. The trial Court also clarified that in case of deposit of said amount stay is granted only for the sale of E.P. schedule property. The stay was granted on 31.01.2024 and the present revision petition was filed on 04.03.2025. Admittedly, the trial Court partly decreed the suit by granting alternative relief as the respondent/plaintiff failed to prove the readiness and willingness to perform his part but, however, execution of sale agreement Ex.A1 and passing of advance money under Ex.A1 to 4 the petitioner/plaintiff was proved. Accordingly the trial Court decreed the suit vide orders dated 26.04.2023 granting alternative relief of refund of amount of Rs.5,02,075/- to the respondent herein with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realisation on principal amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and created charge over the plaint schedule property. After passing the decree, the respondent herein filed E.P.No.41 of 2023 in O.S.No.272 of 2014 for sale of the E.P. schedule property on 18.08.2023. Instead of complying the said orders passed by the court below, revision petition was filed on 04.03.2025 after the cut off dated i.e., 28.02.2024 granted by the trial Court. 6. The petitioner filed a memo dated 07.07.2025, which shows that an amendment petition was filed vide I.A.No.279 of 2025 in I.A.No.329 of 2023 in A.S.No.33 of 2023. On 24.04.2025, the amendment petition was ordered and several amendments were carried out. 7. As contended by learned counsel for the respondent herein, the petitioner ought to have challenged the amended order in the revision, as the present revision becomes defunct in presence of the amended order. 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA NSM 21.11.2025 6 348 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 663 of 2025 NSM 21.11.2025