APHC010228142025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 816 OF 2025 Between: 1. MOVVA RAMASESHAGIRI RAO, S/o Nagabhushanam Polaiah, Aged 83years, R/o 14-1-117, Sreeram Nagar, Nidubrolu, Ponnuru Mandalam, Guntur District. ...Petitioner AND 1. VANKAYALAPATI VENKATA SURENDRA BABU, S/o Gopala Rao, aged 50 years, R/o. Plot No. 105, Sainidhi Towers, Near Santhapet, Saibaba Temple Santhapet, Ongole 523 001, Prakasam District. ...Respondent Appeal Under Section_____against orders pleased to set aside the Order and Decree dated 06-03-2025 passed in IA.No.317 of 2023 in OS.No.274 of 2015, on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Prakasam District, at Ongole, consequently allow the said IA.No.317 of 2023 in OS.No.274 of 2015, as prayed for, and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 205 days in Re presenting the C.M.A.No.816 of 2025, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI Counsel for the Respondent KATA SAMBASIVA RAO 2 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 157 OF 2026 Between: 1. MOVVA RAMASESHAGIRI RAO, S/o Nagabhushanam Polaiah, Aged 83 years, R/o 14-1-117, Sreeram Nagar, Nidubrolu, Ponnuru Mandalam, Guntur District. ...Petitioner AND 1. VANKAYALAPATI VENKATA SURENDRA BABU, S/o Gopala Rao, aged 50 years, Rio. Plot No.105, Sainidhi Towers, Near Santhapet, Saibaba Temple, Santhapet, Ongole 523 001, Prakasam District. ...Respondent 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 to set aside the Order and Decree dated 06-03-2025 passed in IA.No.535 of 2024 in IA.No.317 of 2023 in OS.N.o.274 of 2015, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Prakasam District, at Ongole, consequently allow the said IA.No.535 of 2024 in IA.No.317 of 2023 in OS.No.274 of 2015, on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Prakasam District, at Ongole, as prayed for, and to pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 216 days in Re presenting the CRP.SR. No. 16805 of 2025, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI Counsel for the Respondent KATA SAMBASIVA RAO The Court made the following common order: 3 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Ramesh) As the parties in both the cases are one and the same and both the cases are filed against the same Original Suit, hence both the cases are being disposed of with a common order. 2. Heard Sri Ghanta Ramarao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Anup Koushik Karavdi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri O.Uday Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Kata Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for the respondent in both the cases. 3. The appellant in the C.M.A and the petitioner in the C.R.P is the plaintiff in the suit. The appellant/plaintiff filed O.S.No.274 of 2015 for specific performance of agreement of sale on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. The said matter, after providing several opportunities to the petitioner, has dismissed for non- prosecution and not complying the order for payment of stamp duty and penalty. Though the matter is posted to 24.02.2023 to provide one more opportunity for payment of stamp duty and penalty to the District Collector and to take steps in terms of the order dated 09.3.2023. Despite providing a chance, as the petitioner/plaintiff has not placed any compliance report, hence the matter has been dismissed for non- prosecution on that ground. 4 4. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.317/2023 under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC to set aside the dismissal order dated 09.3.2023. The petitioner has also filed I.A.No.535/2024 in I.A.No.317/2023 in O.S.no.274/2015 under Section 148 and 151 of CPC for condonation of delay of 348 days in filing the batta. Both the I.A’s were considered on the same day on 06.3.2023 and passed separate orders. Aggrieved by the above said orders, the petitioner has preferred the instant appeal as well as revision. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ plaintiff has contended that the petitioner/plaintiff could not be able to comply the orders because the District Registrar did not complete the process even though he made efforts to pay the necessary stamp duty and penalty and there are no latches on the part of the petitioner. Further the Advocate has also informed the party that the court has adjourned the matter to 09.3.2023 with a conditional order. Immediately, he approached the District Registrar to pay the stamp duty and penalty for which the District Registrar informed that they will send notice to him. But in the meanwhile, he joined in the hospital on 01.3.2023 due to ill health and discharged from the hospital only on 10.3.2023. Further as the petitioner being the plaintiff, if the matter is dismissed summarily for non-prosecution, his valuable rights would be effected. In fact each and every time he was ready and willing to 5 proceed with the matter and there are no latches on his part. As he could not be able to pay the necessary stamp duty only, because of the non-acceptance of the same by the revenue authorities. Further he also submitted that even for I.A.No.317/2023 for non-payment of the batta is also not intentional. Even according to the affidavit filed along with the I.A. clearly discloses that the batta enclosed to the petition could not be paid due to inadvertent ministerial lapse in the office of the counsel. For that the party cannot be penalized. Hence requested the Court to set aside both the orders and permit the petitioner/plaintiff to proceed with the matter by complying the orders both with regard to payment of batta as well as payment of penalty and stamp duty. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently opposed the same. As the petitioner/plaintiff, only to harass the respondents has filed the present suit and in fact he has no interest to comply the orders by paying the stamp duty and penalty. In fact he has also not paid the batta for that he filed I.A. for condonation of 348 days delay in filing the batta and no cogent reasons are mentioned in the affidavit. Hence the same cannot be taken into consideration and accordingly and rightly the trial Court has considered and rejected the applications. 7. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and also on perusal of the record, this Court is also of the opinion that the 6 petitioner/plaintiff has not shown any interest more particularly payment of necessary stamp duty and penalty despite granting an opportunity vide order dated 24.02.2023 to pay the said stamp duty and penalty on or before 09.3.2023. The appellant/plaintiff has failed to comply the said orders which show gross negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Further this Court is of the opinion that the condonation of delay and orders under Order IX Rule 9 CPC for setting aside the dismissal order is purely discretionary orders. Hence, generally this Court would not interfere in the discretion exercised by the trial Court. But at the same time, this court is of the firm opinion that generally the matters should be decided based on the record and merits instead of dismissing the matter for non-prosecution. To follow the same principle, this Court is inclined to interfere in the instant matter. 8. Accordingly the order passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole dated 06.3.2025 in I.A.No.535/2024 in I.A.No.317/2023 in O.S.No.274/2015 and also orders in I.A.No.317/2023 in O.S.No.274/2015 are set aside and accordingly I.A.No.317/2023 and I.A.No.535/2024 in I.A.No.317/2023 in O.S.No.274/2015 are allowed with a condition that the appellant/ petitioner/plaintiff is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the respondent within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to file a memo to that effect before 7 the Court concerned within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter. If the appellant/petitioner/plaintiff fails to pay the above said amount within the time stipulated, the order passed by this Court in these cases stands revoked without further reference to this Court. 9. With the above observations, both the Civil Miscellaneous Application and Civil Revision Petition are disposed of. No costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH _____________________________________ JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA 17.9.2026 RD 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No: 816 of 2025 and CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.157 of 2026 17.9.2026 RD