APHC010105022025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 630/2025 Between: 1. ORUGANTI ANJANEYA SARMA, S/O VENKATA SUBRAHMANYA SARMA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 41-13-31, PALAPARTHI VARI STREET, KRISHNA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. ALLAM PUNYAVATHI, W/O BABU RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KATHEVARAM VILLAGE, TENALI, MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. ALLAM BABU RAO, (DIED) 3. ORUGANTI VENKATA SUBRAHMANYA SARMA, S/O LATE BHASKARA SIDDANTI AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS. DOOR NO. 1- 3/24-23/2, ARAVINDA STREET, VIDYADHARAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. ORUGANTI RADHAKRISHNA MURTHY, S/O LATE BHASKARA SIDDANTI AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS. DOOR NO. HIG-213, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5. PRAKYA LAKSHMI ALIVELU, W/O ANJANEYA SARMA, ORUGANTI RADHAKRISHNA MURTHY, S/O LATE BHASKARA SIDDANTI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, DOOR NO. MIG-1, 13/3, 2 HB NEW COLONY, BHAVANIPURANN, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT-12. 6. ORUGANTI UDAYA BHASKAR, , S/O LATE NAGESWARA SARMA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. DOOR NO. 76-17-575, URMILA NAGAR, BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 7. ORUGANTI VENKATA RAMANA MURTHY, S/O LATE NAGESWARA SARMA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDENT OF LALLETELAS, ESTRELLA, SANJOSE, CALIFORNIA, 95148- USA. 8. ORUGANTI GOPALA KRISHNA, , S/O LATE NAGESWARA SARMA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. DOOR NO. 76-17-575, URMILA NAGAR, BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT 12. 9. ORUGANTI BALA CHANDRASEKHARA SASTRY, , S/O LATE VENKATA RAMANA SIDDANTI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. DOOR NO. 10-275-17, SRINAGAR COLONY, YERRABALEM VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 10. ORUGANTI SUBRAHMANYA SASTRY, S/O LATE VENKATA RAMANA SIDDANTI,AGED 60 YEARS. FLAT NO.201,AMRUTHA ENCLAVE, NEW PRAGATI COLONY, KUKATPALLI, HYDERABAD. 11. MALLADI RAJYALAKSHMI, W/O M.R.PRASAD, DAUGHTER LATE VENKATA RAMANA SIDDANTI, AGED 53 YEARS, RESIDENT OF C/O P.V.R. SANKAR, HOUSE NO.25-18-17, SAMPAT NAGAR, BEHIND SIVALAYAM, GUNTUR. 12. ORUGANTI VENKATA RAMA SARMA, S/O LATE BHASKAR RAO. AGED 29 YEARS. DOOR NO.10-512/A, RAILPET, SUBBANNAPET, RENTACHINTALA POST AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 13. ORUGANTI MARUTHI, S/O LATE BHASKAR RAO. AGED 29 YEARS. DOOR NO.10-512/A, RAILPET, SUBBANNAPET, RENTACHINTALA POST AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3 14. AMBALA ADILAKSHMI, W/O SRINIVASARAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KATHEVARAM VILLAGE, TENALI, MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. (RESPONDENTS 2 TO 14 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIE TO THIS REVISION PETITION) ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 Dercretal Order dated 21-12-2024 made in IA. No. 1028 of 2024 in A.S. No. 216 of 2024 on the file of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali and 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 stay of operation of the Order dated 21-12-2024 made in I.A. No. 1028 of 2024 in A.S. No. 216 of 2024 on the file of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali pending disposal of the above revision petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N SRIRAM MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M DURGA PRASAD RAO The Court made the following: 4 ORDER: Aggrieved by the order and decretal order dated 21.12.2024 passed in I.A.No.1028 of 2024 in A.S.No.216 of 2024 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The petitioner is the 10th respondent, the respondents Nos.1 & 2 are the appellants and the respondents 3 to 13 are respondent Nos.1 to 9, 11 & 12 in I.A.No.1028 of 2024 in A.S.No.216 of 2024 filed under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC requesting the Court to stay all further proceedings in E.P.No.54 of 2023 in O.S.No.136 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali 3. Heard Sri N.Sriram Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Durga Prasad Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 13 filed O.S.No.136 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, for declaration and the same was decreed with costs. Thereafter, they filed E.P.No.54 of 2023 for execution of the said decree. He further submitted that aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein/appellants filed A.S.No.216 of 2024 with delay condonation petition wherein notices were ordered. Later, respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein/appellants filed I.A.No.1028 of 2024 in A.S.No.216 of 2024 and 5 the Appellate Court, upon erroneous view of the matter, granted stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.54 of 2023 in O.S.No.136 of 2019 till disposal of the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that if interim relief is not granted pending disposal of the appeal, the very right of the petitioner to pursue the appeal would be defeated. He further submitted that in the absence of an order of stay against the mandatory injunction, the very purpose of filing the revision itself would be defeated, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 contended that the order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court, and, the petitioner has not made out any case for grant of stay. The appellate Court has rightly passed the orders granting stay. The Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the revision. 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. By the impugned order, the decree of the trial Court has been stayed pending disposal of the appeal. Through the decree impugned in the appeal, a mandatory injunction directing the defendants/appellants to 6 demolish the constructions made in the plaint schedule property has also been granted. 9. This Court see no merit in this Civil Revision Petition warranting interference with the order passed by the appellate Court and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner sought a direction to the appellate Court to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible by fixing time. This Court is not inclined to fix any specific time limit for disposal of the appeal, however, the Appellate Court is directed to consider and dispose of the appeal as per its schedule. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 27th February, 2026 RKS