APHC010028422026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] SATURDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 275/2026 Between: Polamarasettidamu Nageswara Rao, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Grandhisrirama and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. B.ABHAY SIDDHANTH MOOTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 275/2026 ORDER:- Heard Sri Abhay Siddhanth Mootha, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Respondents are the plaintiffs. They filed O.S.No.107 of 2014 in the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) of Anakapalle. The suit was filed inter-alia for direction to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.55,000/- to the plaintiffs with interest from the date of the suit and to continue to pay the same on every month with consequential reliefs. 3. The suit was decreed vide Judgment and Decree dated 14.02.2025 in the following terms:- “01. That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants; 02. that the defendants no.1 and 2, their men, servants, agents and assigns are hereby directed to vacate the plaint schedule mentioned property and to deliver the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff no.2 within two (2) months; 03. that the defendants no.1 and 2 are hereby directed to pay arrears of rent of Rs.55,000/- to the plaintiffs together with interest at 12% p.a from the date of suit till date of decree, 3 and thereafter at 6% p.a from the date of decree till the date of the realization of Rs.55,000/-; 04. that the defendants do pay costs of Rs.12,667/- to the plaintiffs towards costs of the suit.” 4. In the said suit, the plaintiffs also filed I.A.No.412 of 2014 under Order XV-A CPC to direct the defendants to deposit arrears of rent @ Rs.5,500/- per month from June, 2013 and to continue to pay the same on every month and for consequential remedies. 5. The said application i.e., I.A.No.412 of 2014 was also allowed by order dated 14.02.2025 i.e., on the same date. 6. The present civil revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14.02.2025 in I.A.No.412 of 2014. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners challenges the said order on the ground that the order was passed after the decree was passed, as is evident from para-9 of the order itself, in which it has been mentioned: “It is admitted fact that the suit in OS No.107/2014 was decreed since the plaintiffs/petitioners have proved their case and on the other hand, the respondents/defendants have failed to prove their contention. Hence it is necessary to direct the respondents/defendants to pay arrears of rent to the petitioners/plaintiffs for the plaint schedule 4 premises from the date of filing of the suit till the date of delivery of vacant possession of the same, since the main suit was decreed.”. 8. His submission is that once the decree was passed in the suit, the interlocutory application could not have been decided and the pending application ought to have merged in the final order. 9. On specific query, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the arguments in I.A.No.412 of 2014 as also in the suit were heard on the same date and the matter was reserved on 30.01.2025. 10. So, it is not in dispute that the arguments in the suit as also in I.A.No.412 of 2014 were heard and the Judgment/order was reserved on 30.01.2025. The Judgment in the suit as also in the application have been pronounced on the same date i.e., on 14.02.2025. It cannot be said that the order in I.A.No.412 of 2014 could not be passed as the final Judgment had been passed. The objection raised is too technical to be accepted. If the application had been filed afterwards or if the parties had not been heard or if the order had been passed on the application on any other date, 5 the contention might have some force. But here, the judgment in suit and in I.A. have been delivered same date. 11. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date: 31.01.2026 JLV 6 133 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 275/2026 DATE: 31.01.2026 JLV