IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 696 OF 2020 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order Dt. 27-01-2020 (Twenty Seventh Day of January, Two Thousand Twenty) and passed in I.A.No.651 of 2019 in O.S.No.397 of 2012 by XII Additional District Judges Court, Visakhapatnam and allow the I.A.No.651 of 2019 in O.S.No.397 of 2012. Between: Smt. Garikina Kumari, W/o. Uma Maheswara Rao, Hindu, Female, aged Ayyappa Nagar NGO Colony, 50 D.No.3710-35/1 years, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ...Petitioner/Plaintiff AND 1. Mallepula Franklin Kiran Kumar, S/o. Krupa Bhaskar Rao, Hindu, Male Aged Years, R/o. D.No.50-94-24, Santhipuram, Visakhapatnam. 2. Sri Sasubilli Manoj Kumar, SI o. Niranjana Rao, Hindu, Male, Aged 35 Years, R/o D.No.58-19-58, Pydimamba Colony, Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam - 27 Near Gurudwar, 3. Smt. Sasubilli Prasanna Kumari, W/o. Laveti Ananta Rao, Hindu, Female. Aged 34 Years. R/o. D.No.58-19-58. Pydimamba Colony Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam - 27 4. Smt. Sasubilli Neelima, W/o. Purli Srinviasa Sai, Hindu. Female, Aged 32 Years, R/o. D.No.58-19-58, Pydimamba Colony Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam - 27 (2 to 4 are proposed parties) ...Respondents/Defendants/Proposed Parties lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings No.397/2012 in O.S. on the file of XII Additional District Judges Court, Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C. VENKAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: - The Court made the following: 1 APHC010101242020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 696 OF 2020 Between: Garikina Kumari ...PETITIONER AND Mallepula Franklin Kiran Kumar and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.C VENKAIAH Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1. The Court made the following order: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CLVIL REVISION PETITION No.696 OF 9000 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition filed passed in IANo.651 of 2019 in O.S.No.397 of 2012 Additional District Judge, Visakhapatanam. against the order, dated 27.01.2020 on the file the XII 2. The Petitioner is the Piaintiff. The suit was fiied for specific performance of agreement of sale. During pendency of the I.A.No.625 of 2012, (later renumbered direction to the Respondent No.1 not to alienate the suit, the Petitioner filed as I.A.No.789 of 2018) seeking suit schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. In the said I.A., the trial court on 01.10.2012 directed the parties to maintain status quo from alienating the schedule property and the same is in subsistence. 3. While the order of status quo was in subsistence, the Defendant No.1 executed a sale deed in favour of the proposed Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 vide document No.5890 of 2018, dated 27.10.2018. I.A.No.573 of 2019 under Order 39, Rule 2 (A) for violation of status The Petitioner then filed quo order referred supra as well as I.A.No.651 of 2019 to implead the subsequent purchasers as party Defendants to the suit. 4. The trial court on contest; dismissed the application. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned the Respondents. counsel for 3 6. Notice to Respondent No.1 was served and there is no appearance on his behalf. Notice to Respondent Nos.2 to 4 though sent, there i: appearance for them. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition proceeded on merits. 7. The fact that the proposed Respondent Nos.2 to 4 have purchased property under registered sale deed is not in dispute Under Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, the relief of specific performance can be enforced against subsequent purchasers also. Therefore, the proposed respondents and necessary parties to the suit. In that view of the matter, the order of the trial court is set-aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/-B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR IS no are proper 8. ' SECTION OFFICER 1. The XII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri C Venkaiah, Advocate [OPUC] 3. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 4. Three CD Copies //TRUE COPY// To, Pmg sree - HIGH COURT DATED:02/01/2025 ORDER CRP.No.696 of 2020 = 1 7 MAR 2025 ^ ^ . Current Section ALLOWING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS