— APHC010052302020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 409 OF 2020 Petition under Section 115 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 03.12.2019 passed in E.A No.116/2017 in E.P.No.139/2004 in O.S.No. 156/1996 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. Between: Kuppuru Padma, W/o. Late Ramakrishna Kumar, aged about 47 years, R/o. 9- 25-379, Janatapet, North Kavali town Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ...PETITIONER/D.HR AND 1. Kuppuru Ramakrishna Kumar (Died) 2. Kuppuru Venkata Subbaiah (Died) 3. Kuppuru Eswaramma (Died) 4. Kuppuru Sagarika (Died) 5- Kuppuru Mounika, her Grand Mother D.No.16-3-760, Ram D/o. Late K. Sagarika, Ganta Narayanamma Murthy Nagar, Nellore, aged about 16 years, Rep. by aged about 55 years, R/o. SPSR Nellore District. ...RESPONDENTS/J.DR’S ■■ SRI K RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Petitioner Counsei for the Respondents: The Court made the foliowing ORDER; f r 1 APHC010052302020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] ■j™ TUESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 409/2020 Between: 1.KUPPURU PADMA, W/0. LATE RAMAKRISHNA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/0. 9-25-379, JANATAPET, NORTH KAVALI TOWN 86 MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. KUPPURU RAMAKRISHNA KUMAR DIED, A , 2.KUPPURU VENKATA SUBBAIAH DIED. A 3. KUPPURU ESWARAMMA DIED, A 4.KUPPURU SAGARIKA DIED, A 5.KUPPURU MOUNIKA, , D/O. LATE K. SAGARIKA, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, REP. BY HER GRAND MOTHER GANTA NARAYANAMMA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/0. D.NO. 16-3-760, RAM MURTHV NAGAR, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE 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 toMemorandum of Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 03.12.2019 passed in E.A No. 116/2017 in E.P No.139/2004 in O.S No. 156/1996 On the File of the First Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, Counsel for the Petitioner: p 2 1.K RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: / 3 m... ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/decree holder challenging the order dated 03.12.2019 passed in E.A.No.116 of 2017 in E.P.No.139 of 2004 in O.S.No.156 of 1996 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. The brief facts of the case are that E.P.No.139 of 2004 in O.S.No.156 of 2. 1996 was posted on 02.06.2017 for filing publication and for conducting auction. Subsequently, as there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, E.P.No.139 of 2004 was dismissed for default on 02.06.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner filed E.A.No.116 of 2017 in E.P.No.139 of 2004 under Order XXI Rules 105 and 106 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘C.P.C.’) requesting the Court below to set-aside the dismissal order dated 02.06.2017 and to restore the E.P.No.139 of 2004, stating that as she was suffering from viral disease, she got admitted in Dr. Gundemadugula Devadanam Memorial Hospital, Kavali as in-patient on 10.05.2017 and was discharged subsequently, but, however, she was advised by the doctor to take rest ill 30.05.2017. It is further stated in the said application that in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner could not meet her counsel for giving instructions regarding the publication of sale proclamation in Eenadu daily for conducting auction of E.P., schedule property, though her counsel had paid sale batta. 3. The Court below, duly observing that though there is every possibility for the petitioner to contact her counsel through phone and proceed in the E.P., for publication of sale proclamation, the petitioner did not proceed in the matter and accordingly, E.A.No.116 of 2017 was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 02.06.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 4. Heard Sri. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. On a perusal of the material available on record, it can be observed that the petitioner/decree holder filed E.P.No.139 of 2004 in O.S.No.156 of 1996 against the respondent/judgment debtor and on 23.09.2016, the Court below has ordered proclamation and sale to be published in Eenadu daily district edition news paper and the matter was posted to 10.11.2016. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on several occasions as the petitioner has not filed publication and as such, a fresh proclamation and sale was ordered to be published. Even on 02.06.2017, as the publication was not filed and as the petitioner/decree holder was absent, the Court below has dismissed E.P.No.139 of 2004 for default on 02.06.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/decree holder filed E.A.No.116 of 2017 in E.P.No.139 of 2004 in O.S.No.156 of 1996 stating that she could not comply with the orders passed by the Court below as she was admitted in the hospital for treatment and that she was advised by the doctor to take rest till 30.05.2017. She further stated that she could not instruct her counsel regarding publication of sale proclamation in Eenadu daily newspaper and also contended that though the 5. 5 E.P., schedule mentioned property was brought to Court auction, no bidders have participated due to demonetization. As such, she requested the Court below to set aside the order dated 02.06.2017 and to restore the execution petition. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner has enclosed medical certificate issued by the hospital in which she underwent treatment, which establishes the fact that she suffered hepatitis and that she was recommended to take rest from 10.05.2017 till 30.05.2017. In such a case, the Court below ought to have considered the same and should have given a fair opportunity to the petitioner by imposing some costs for causing delay in the E.P., proceedings. But, instead of doing so, the Court below has dismissed the restoration petition filed by the petitioner by attributing negligence on her behalf, which ought not to have been done in the considered opinion of this Court. The petitioner has filed documents to show that she was admitted to the hospital, due to which she could not appear before the Court below on time, which in the considered opinion of this Court is an important and genuine reason for not appearing before the Court. Under such circumstances, the Court should take a fair and practical approach while considering applications filed by the petitioner. The Court should adopt a fair and practical approach in such situations, focusing on the actual facts rather than strictly on technicalities. Since the petitioner’s non-appearance was caused by a genuine medical emergency and not by negligence or bad intention, the Court should have restored the case by imposing costs, if it so deems and should 7. 6 have proceeded further, which approach helps to ensure that justice is done without being harsh circumstances. minor irregularities caused by unavoidable over 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, this civil revision petition is allowed and the order dated 03.12.2019 in E.A.No.116 of 2017 in E.P.No.139 of 2004 in O.S.No.156 of 1996 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge set-aside. Further, E.P.No.139 of 2004 in O.S.No.156 of 1996 shall be restored, subject to the petitioner herein paying Rs.2,000/- before the Court below towards costs. No costs. Nellore is Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. SD/- K.J.RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 2. One CC to SRI. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 4. Two CD Copies pmg TAC HIGH COURT DATED; 12/08/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 409 OF 2020 ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION