1 APHC010182612021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] TUESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 563/2021 Between: 1. SRI LAGISETTY MURALIDHAR, S/O.L.ACHUTARAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O D.NO.45-47-41/2, AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM (INCORRECTLY SHOWN IN THE CAUSE TITLE) PRESENTLY STAYING AT R/O D.NO.8-7-98/149, HANUMAN NAGAR, NEAR TKR COLLEGE, KHARMAN GHAT, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT- 500097 ...PETITIONER AND 1. SMT MADDALA MANI, W/o M.GovindaRajulu, Aged 73 years, R/o D.No.49-45-10, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K PALLAVI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. S A V RATNAM The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 563/2021 O R D E R: 1. The instant Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against an Order dated 15.03.2021 in E.P.No.8 of 2021 in O.S.No.683 of 2018 passed by the learned VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. Brief averments of the matter are that – the present Respondent being Plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the present Petitioner and the same was decreed ex-parte. The said ex-parte Decree was placed for execution in impugned E.P.No.18 of 2021; the application under Order XXI, Rule 36 of Civil Procedure Code for delivery of possession in favour of the Decree Holder was considered and allowed by the learned Court below by passing the impugned Order; challenging the said Order, present Petitioner being Defendant has filed the instant Civil Revision Petition. 3. During the pendency of the instant Civil Revision Petition an Interim Order was passed by this Court on 16.06.2021. The operative portion of the impugned Order is as follows:- “Both the Counsel are directed to be ready for final disposal of the matter. Meanwhile, the Respondent shall not to alienate/change, or create any third party interest of the schedule property in O.S.No.683 of 2018 on the file of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam”. 3 4. This matter was mentioned by the learned Counsel for the Respondent “for disposal” on the ground that the matter became infructuous. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondent herein that the Execution Petition has already been disposed of and the Ex-parte Decree, on the basis of which the Execution Proceeding was preferred was already been set aside by an Order of learned Court below in terms of an application of the Petitioner herein under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the present Respondent has practiced fraud upon the learned Trial Court after revival of the Suit under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, they have not proceeded with the suit only on the reason that they have already taken possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of the instant Execution Petition No.8 of 2021. The petitioner further submits that the Respondent being the Plaintiff should have proceeded to dispose of the suit, but they practiced fraud upon the Court by not-pressing the suit, thereby, the suit has already been disposed of as withdrawn. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that during subsistence of Interim Order passed by this Court, the Plaintiff/Respondent has acted fraud upon the learned Court below as well as before this Court to get decision regarding the suit property by illegally. It is further contention of the Petitioner that an application under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code has also been 4 filed before the learned Trial Court, which was disposed of, against which, a Civil Revision Petition is pending vide C.R.P.No.717 of 2025 before this Court. It is the sole contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that both the C.R.Ps may be clubbed together, so that the matter can be decided effectively. 6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent raised objection. She submits that there was nothing left to decide in the suit itself, as the possession has already been delivered in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent through Court. She further submits that the Defendant/Plaintiff, being aggrieved against such decision, has filed an application under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code and it was turned down by the learned Trial court. Thus, the Civil Revision Petition is pending. It is further contention of the Respondent that they never acted in fraud upon the Court. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that this is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the impugned Order dated 15.03.2021 which was passed in E.P.No.8 of 2021 in O.S.No.683 of 2018 on the file of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. Admittedly, the execution proceeding on the basis of ex-parte Decree is no more, as the ex-parte decree has already been set aside by an order of the learned Trial Court. Thus, entire proceedings in execution case, including impugned Order has lost its force. The instant Civil Revision petition cannot be continued. 5 Considering the prayer of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, it appears that there was an Interim Order passed by this Court during pendency of the instant Civil Revision Petition. 8. During disposal of the instant Civil Revision Petition, it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Respondent/Plaintiff has acted fraud upon the learned Trial Court in spite of existence of the Interim Order passed by this Court, respondent has taken possession of property and at any time they may create 3rd party interest. She further submits that if the instant Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, the Plaintiff/Respondent may dispose of the property in favour of any third party. In considering the submission, I am of the view that the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited one. Facts suggest that the Petitioner has already filed another Civil Revision Petition challenging an Order passed by the learned Trial court under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code. It further appears that plea regarding acting fraud by the Respondent/Plaintiff upon either learned Trial Court or before this Court can be very well pleaded or proved by the present Petitioner at appropriate stage. If any fraud has been acted by the Plaintiff that can be proved according to law, but this Court cannot entertain such plea at this stage. This Court can only confine itself under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to see the illegality and validity of the impugned Order or any act or action committed by the learned Trial Court. 6 Whether any act of fraud has been perpetrated by the Plaintiff/ Respondent upon the Court can only be considered by this Court in separate Civil Revision Petition, which was already pending regarding plea of restitution of the present Petitioner. In my view, both the Civil Revision Petitions are not required to be clubbed together. The petitioner is at liberty to take the plea that the Respondent/ Plaintiff has acted fraud upon the Court in spite of subsistence of Interim Order passed by this Court at any appropriate stage. Under the above observation, the instant Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. 9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, without costs. The interim orders, if any, granted earlier, shall stand vacated. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA KS Dated:30-12-2025. 7 164 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.563 OF 2021 DATED:30.12.2025. KS