APHC010511452025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2681/2025 Between: 1. SUKATHI (DIED), ( DIED ) 2. 2. G HARIPRASAD, /O. LATE SEKHAR NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O. D NO. 4-2062/1E SIDDHARTHA NAGAR, CHITTOOR TOWN, CHITTOOR. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. M MUNIRAJULU, S/O. KRISHNAMA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O. D NO. 2-365, NEAR RAITHU BAZAR, K R PALLI, CHITTOOR TOWN CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. M SAVITHRI, W/O. M. MUNIRAJULU , AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. D NO. 2-365, NEAR RAITHU BAZAR, K R PALLI, CHITTOOR TOWN CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. 3. GEETHA, W/O. SREENIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. D NO. 2-349, NEAR SAIBABA TEMPLE, SATHYANARAYANAPOURAM, CHITTOOR TOWN, CHITTOOR. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. T C KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. O UDAYA KUMAR 2 HNJS,J C.R.P.No.2681 of 2025 The Court made the following Order: Present revision petition is filed aggrieved by non-numbering of E.P. i.e., E.P.No. /2025 (CF.No.3361 of 2025) in LLA No.2861/2016 in PLP No.2559 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor. Petitioners herein, who are the decree holders filed the said application under Order 21, Rule 11 (2) of CPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that the said application was initially returned on 30.06.2025 with certain objections, which were duly complied with and re-presented on 02.07.2025, but the same was returned again on 17.07.2025. 3. He submits that on 24.07.2025 all the objections were duly complied with and the EP was re-presented. However, the same was returned again on 29.07.2025 raising all together different objections. 4. Learned counsel submits that under the said circumstances, while re- presenting papers on 31.07.2025, a request was made to the learned District Judge to call the matter on the Bench and hear it. Learned counsel submits that instead of taking up the matter as requested for consideration, again the learned District Court returned the E.P. on 13.08.2025. 5. Learned counsel submits that the learned District Judge instead of entertaining the request made by learned counsel appearing for the Decree Holder in the Executing Court, is returning the E.P. on one ground or the 3 HNJS,J C.R.P.No.2681 of 2025 other, which is not tenable, and if at all, the learned Judge is required to pass appropriate orders, after giving opportunity to the counsel for decree holder, with regard to the objections raised. 6. Under the said circumstances, as the learned District Court was not passing any orders by giving an opportunity of hearing on the objections raised, the learned counsel submits that the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court seeking appropriate orders. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents advanced arguments on the merits of the case, but this Court is not inclined to examine the same. 8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, when a request is made to take up the matter by calling on the Bench, the learned Judge is required to hear the parties and pass appropriate orders, so that the party aggrieved by the same, can seek recourse to Law. As no specific order of the Court is questioned, except that the matter is not taken up for hearing as requested, this Court is inclined to dispose of the revision petition, providing that learned Principal District Judge shall take up the matter with regard to the office objections and pass appropriate orders, after giving due opportunity to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4 HNJS,J C.R.P.No.2681 of 2025 9. Registry is directed to return the original documents filed along with the C.R.P. and the E.P., including the material containing the return endorsement of the learned District Court. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA 28.11.2025 PGT