APHC010006052026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Tuesday, the Sixth day of January Two Thousand and Twenty Six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 33 of 2026 Between: Madam Markendeya ...Petitioner and M.Prameelamma (died) by her L.R. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Seshadri Goalla Counsel for the respondents: 1. K.Narsi Reddy The Court made the following: 2 C.R.P.No.33 of 2026 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., against the order dated 09.12.2025 in E.A.No.272 of 2025 in E.A.No.178 of 2018 in E.P.No.4 of 2016 in O.S.No.245 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anantapuramu, which is filed under Section 151 C.P.C. to condone the delay of 1035 days in filing the petition to restore E.A.No.178 of 2018. 2. The facts leading to filing of this revision petition, briefly stated, are as follows: a. The respondent No.1 / D.hr. filed a suit against the respondent No.2 / J.Dr. for recovery of money vide O.S.No.245 of 2015. Along with the suit, a petition in I.A.No.182 of 2015 was filed under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 C.P.C. seeking attachment of the E.P. schedule property before judgment. The trial Court ordered urgent notices on 13.04.2015. On 18.04.2015, the respondent No.2 / defendant / J.Dr. executed a registered sale deed in favour of the revision petitioner / claim petitioner, in respect of the very same property. The suit was decreed ex parte against the defendant / J.Dr. on 18.08.2015 for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,58,658/-, being principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and interest on the principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- @24% per annum from 16.02.2013 (i.e., the date of execution of promissory note) and with future interest @12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and subsequently @6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization. b. The D.Hr. filed E.P.No.4 of 2016 for realization of decreetal amount by attachment and sale of E.P. schedule property. Pending the execution petition, the revision petitioner filed E.A.No.178 of 2018 under Order XXI, Rule 58 C.P.C. on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 18.04.2015 executed by the J.Dr. in favour of the claim petitioner. 3 C.R.P.No.33 of 2026 c. The petition was opposed by the D.Hr. by filing a counter mainly contending that it is a collusive, nominal and sham sale deed executed to avoid the future liabilities, knowing about the notice dated 13.04.2015 ordered in I.A.No.182 of 2015 and that the claim petitioner and J.Dr. are relatives. The claim petition was dismissed for default on 14.02.2023 for not taking steps against the respondent No.2 / J.Dr. d. At that juncture, the revision petitioner filed an application vide E.A.No.405 of 2025 under Order XXI, Rule 106 C.P.C. to restore the claim petition in E.A.No.178 of 2018, and an application vide E.A.No.272 of 2025 to condone delay of 1035 days in filing E.A.No.405 of 2025. e. The petitioner stated that he could not file the petition for restoration of the claim petition within the period of limitation as he was residing in Kurnool and suffering from ailments and further he went to Bangalore to eke out his livelihood. He further submitted that he has good case to win the claim petition. The petition was opposed by filing a counter of the respondents Nos.3 to 5 who are added as legal representatives of the respondent No.1 on her death. After hearing both parties, the execution Court dismissed the petition observing that sufficiency of cause for the delay has not been proved. f. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 09.12.2025 in E.A.No.272 of 2025, this revision petition was filed. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that there is a good case for the petitioner to win the claim petition because the registered sale deed was executed well prior to the order of attachment in the execution proceedings and that the execution Court ought to have leniently condoned the delay to provide a fair opportunity to the parties to contest the matter on merits. It is further submitted that the counsel for the petitioner had not informed the progress of the case 4 C.R.P.No.33 of 2026 to the petitioner, whereas the petitioner is residing at distant place and could not pursue the matter. Therefore, he prayed to allow the petition. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.3 to 5 / D.Hrs.Nos.3 to 5 submitted that the execution Court rightly dismissed the petition as the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for the delay of 1035 days and the reasons stated by the petitioner are also vague and not substantiated by any evidence. 5. In the claim petition, there is a serious dispute about the alienable right of the J.Dr. over the E.P. schedule property. However, since the present petition is to condone the delay in filing the petition to restore the claim petition which was dismissed for default, the petitioner has to show sufficient reason for not filing the petition within the period of limitation. In this respect, the petitioner stated that he was out of station and he could not file the petition in time. 6. Though, it was also stated that he had suffered from ailments, there are no details or evidence regarding the ailments which are said to have prevented him from filing the petition in time. Though it was also orally argued that the counsel for the petitioner had not informed, there was no such pleading taken in the petition nor was it argued before the execution Court. Therefore, this ground cannot be accepted at this juncture. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner is residing at a place distant from the place of the Court, whether he is residing in Kurnool district or in Bangalore. No doubt, there is a serious claim raised against the attachment of the property in execution. That apart, by virtue of the sale deed dated 18.04.2015 executed by the J.Dr. in favour of the claimant before the order of attachment was affected, there is a cloud on the right of the J.Dr. over the E.P. schedule property which is sought to be sold in execution. Interest of the D.Hr. is only to 5 C.R.P.No.33 of 2026 secure his right of recovery of money from the J.Dr. and not to claim any personal right over the property said to be sold for realization of the decreetal amount. 8. Under these circumstances, to balance interests of both parties, this Court is of the view that the delay can be condoned subject to terms to protect the interest of D.Hr. as well. 9. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed, and the order dated 09.12.2025 in E.A.No.272 of 2025 is set aside and the petition therein is allowed on the condition that the petitioner shall, within two (2) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, deposit the total amount of E.P. due under the decree as on the date of the deposit. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ ___ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Dated: 06.01.2026 NSM 6 C.R.P.No.33 of 2026 119 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 33 of 2026 Date: 06.01.2026 NSM