1 APHC010088362020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] TUESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 552/2020 Between: 1. NAMMI SATYANARAYANA,, S/O.LATE RAMULU, AGED 48 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.9-40-22/2, NAMMIVANIPETA, SANGIVALASA VILLAGE, BHEEMUNIPATNAM MANDAL, CHITTIVALASA POST - 531 162, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. M/S BUNYAN ASSOCIATES, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, ANURAG BUNYAN, S/O.AUGUSTIN.B, AGED 41 YEARS, H.NO.10-3-22, TEACHERS COLONY, EAST MAREDPALLY, SECUNDERABAD - 500 026, TELANGANA AND H.NO.10-3-108, EAST MAREDPALLY, SECUNDERABAD - 500 026, TELANGANA AND BRANCH OFFICE, HOUSE NO.8-1-1, BALAJINAGAR, SIRIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 003. 2. RANJEET SINGH, S/O.BHAJAN SINGH, AGED 53 YEARS, PLOT NO.73, GRUHA LAKSHMI COLONY, KAKAGUDA, SECUNDERABAD - 500 015, TELANGANA. 3. SUPREETH SINGH, S/O.RANJEETH SINGH, AGED 26 YEARS, PLOT NO.73, GRUHA LAKSHMI COLONY, KAKAGUDA, SECUNDERABAD - 500 015, TELANGANA. 2 4. DEEPAK SAMAT, S/O.ARJUN DAS, AGED 55 YEARS, PLOT NO.2, SURYANAGAR COLONY, KARKHANA, SECUNDERABAD - 500 009, TELANGANA. 5. VANARASI RAMAKRISHNA, S/O.RADHAKRISHNA, AGED 41 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.35-12-18, DHANYAM PAKALA VEEDHI, MAGALAVARAPU PETA, RAJAHMUNDRY - 533 101, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6. MUPPALLA VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O.LATE RADHAKRISHNA, AGED 70 YEARS, PLOT NO.338, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR COLONY, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD - 500 001, TELANGANA. 7. MUPPALLA VIJAYKUMAR, S/O.VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED 44 YEARS, PLOT NO.338, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR COLONY, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD - 500 001, TELANGANA. 8. M JACINTH AKHILA, D/O.UDAIA KUMAR MUSUKU, AGED 26 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.1-2-100, STREET NO.2, KAKATIYA NAGAR, HABSIGUDA, HYDERABAD - 500 007, TELANGANA. 9. YALAMANCHILI VIJAYA LAXMI, W/O.Y.JAYARAMA RAO, - 3 AGED 67 YEARS, R/O.FLAT NO.104, SUJANAS SAI BALAJI NILAYAM, OPP. ST.ANN'S SCHOOL, NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, MADINAGUDA, MIYAPUR, HYDERABAD - 500 049, TELANGANA 10. KOLLURU KRUPARAO, S/O.LATE KOLLURU DHARMA RAO. AGED 55 YEARS, FLAT NO.105, SUJANA APARTMENTS, SAI BALAJI NILAYAM, MADINAGUDA, NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, HYDERABAD - 500 049, TELANGANA. 11. KOLLURU SUJANA, W/O.KOLLURU KRUPAKARA RAO, AGED 49 YEARS, FLAT NO.105, SUJANA APARTMENTS, SAL BALAJI NILAYAM, MADINAGUDA, NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, HYDERABAD - 500 049, TELANGANA. 12. INAPUDI SUREKHA, W/O.INAPUDI KOTESWARA RAO, AGED 41 YEARS, FLAT NO.4F-501, KEERTHAN RESIDENCY, SAI PRIYA GARDENS, CHANDRAMPALEM, KOMMADI, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 048. 3 13. SUNEET SINGH, S/O.RANJEET SINGH, AGED 30 YEARS, PIOT NO.73, GRUHALAKSHMI COLONY, KAKAGUDA, SECUNDERABAD - 500 015, TELANGANA. 14. BADISA KIRAN KUMAR, S/O.VARADAIAH, AGED 40 YEARS, R/O.DR.NO.5-6-59/34, RAJEEV SHARMA NAGAR, BEHIND SOWMYA THEATRE, CHITTINAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT - 520 001. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G RAMA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM The Court made the following: 4 THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 552/2020 O R D E R: 1. Petitioner being aggrieved by an Order dated 27.09.2019 in I.A.No.1043 of 2018 in O.S.No.520 of 2018 passed by the learned XII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, preferred the instant Civil Revision Petition. 2. Petitioner being the Plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of an agreement before the learned Court below. In brief, the Petitioner and Respondents entered into a development agreement to develop the suit schedule property. It is the contention of the Petitioner/Plaintiff that Defendant being the developer started constructing apartment with inferior quality materials; and also stopped construction in midway. Plaintiff, to take note of the suit schedule property and noting down the physical features, stage of construction and material quality of construction, he filed an application under Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Court below after hearing the said application from both sides reserved the same for passing order. Thereafter the impugned Order was passed by the learned Court below, whereby he again reopened for hearing said application under Order, XXVI, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. 3. Perused the impugned Order passed by the learned Court below. 4. It appears that the learned Court below has not decided the application finally. The way in which the learned Court below has proceeded in 5 deciding the application under Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code is not desirable when heard both sides, the learned Court should have disposed of the same petition according to Law. However, as the application was not disposed of yet, the learned Court below is directed to dispose of the same after hearing both the parties, as early as possible, most preferably, within 04 (four) weeks from the date of receiving this Order. I make it clear that the application under Order XXVI, Rule of the Civil Procedure Code shall be disposed of according to the parameters under Order XXVI, Rule 9 as well as Order XXVI, Rule 10(a) of the Civil Procedure Code in considering the attending facts and circumstances of this case. Under the above observation, the instant Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. 5. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, without costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA KS Dated:06.01.2026. 6 07 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.552 OF 2020 DATED:06.01.2026. KS