APHC010130202025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDA TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION Between: 1. P.RAMESH REDDY,, S/O. LATE P.NAGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O. D.NO.20 TIRUPATI CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 1. NAGOLU ESWAR REDDY, S/o. N.Subba Reddy, Aged about 36 Business R/o. D.N0.19 SrinivasapuramRenigunta Road, Tirupati. Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may b pleased toThe above-named Petitioners beg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 13.02.2025 passed in I.A. No. 630 of 2024 in O.S. No. 124 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Tirupati, 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 may be pleased to grant a stay of all further proceedings in O.S No. 124 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati,, during the pendency of the above Revision Petition and may pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) AY, THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 731/2025 P.RAMESH REDDY,, S/O. LATE P.NAGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O. D.NO.20-3-208, RAYALA VARI VEEDHI, YERRA MITTA, TIRUPATI CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND NAGOLU ESWAR REDDY, S/o. N.Subba Reddy, Aged about 36 Business R/o. D.N0.19-3-2/G/8 part, 19th ward, SrinivasapuramRenigunta Road, Tirupati. ...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 b named Petitioners beg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 13.02.2025 passed in I.A. No. 630 of 2024 in O.S. No. 124 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Additional upati, 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 may be pleased to grant a stay of all further proceedings in O.S No. 124 of 21 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati,, during the pendency of the above Revision Petition and may pass RC,J CRP No.731 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI P.RAMESH REDDY,, S/O. LATE P.NAGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 208, RAYALA VARI VEEDHI, YERRA MITTA, ...PETITIONER NAGOLU ESWAR REDDY, S/o. N.Subba Reddy, Aged about 36 years. 2/G/8 part, 19th ward, ...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 named Petitioners beg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 13.02.2025 passed in I.A. No. 630 of 2024 in O.S. No. 124 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Additional 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 may be pleased to grant a stay of all further proceedings in O.S No. 124 of 21 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati,, during the pendency of the above Revision Petition and may pass RC,J CRP No.731 of 2025 2 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 may be pleased to extend the interim orders dated 09.05.2025 granted by this Hon’ble Court in C R P No. 731 of 2025 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKAT SAILENDRA G Counsel for the Respondent: 1. MOPURU ABHISHEK The Court made the following: RESERVED ON 24.02.2026 PRONOUNCED ON 09.03.2026 UPLOADED ON 09.03.2026 RC,J CRP No.731 of 2025 3 ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 13.02.2025 passed in I.A.No.630 of 2024 in O.S.No.124 of 2021 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Tirupati. 2. The Revision Petitioner is the respondent/ plaintiff, while respondent is the petitioner/defendant in I.A.No.630 of 2024 in O.S.No.124 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Tirupati. 3. The facts that led to filing of this Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that: (i) The Revision Petitioner filed the suit vide O.S.No.124 of 2021 for specific performance of agreement of sale against the respondent. In the said suit the petitioner filed petition vide I.A.No.630 of 2024 under Order IX Rule- 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree dated 19.10.2022 contending that the suit summons were not served on him, since were sent to wrong address only to get ex parte decree. The plaintiff by filing counter resisted the claim made by the defendant contending that the defendant having received legal notice sent to the same address, somehow successfully managed to return the notices, which were later served through paper publication and consequent to RC,J CRP No.731 of 2025 4 absence of the defendant, he was set ex parte on 23.08.2022 and ex parte decree was passed on 19.10.2022. It is further contended in the counter that though the defendant had knowledge of the suit proceedings, he did not participate in the suit proceedings and when the E.P.proceedings reached midway, he filed this petition only to drag on the proceedings endlessly. (ii) The learned trial Judge, upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, allowed the petition subject to payment of costs, observing that suit summons were not served on the defendant and were served only through paper publication, which is a less reliable method of service. (iii) The said order has been assailed in this Civil Revision Petition. 4. Heard Sri Venkat Sailendra G., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mopuru Abhishek, learned counsel for respondent. 5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. The record discloses that admittedly the suit summons was not served on the defendant, which was served by way of substitute service of publication. The main contention of the defendant is that he had not been residing in the locality wherein the publication was made. RC,J CRP No.731 of 2025 5 7. The principle that courts should dispose of cases on their merits rather than technicalities is a cornerstone of the Indian judicial system, frequently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court to ensure that substantive justice prevails over procedural formalities. The core philosophy is that procedural rules are "handmaids of justice," intended to facilitate, not hinder, the resolution of disputes. 8. The Court below having considered the fact that non service of summons is a ground to set aside the ex parte order allowed the petition filed under Order IX, Rule-13 of Code of Civil Procedure. 9. The learned trial Judge having considered the facts and attendant circumstances of the case rightly allowed the petition and the same does not deserve any interference of this court. The Civil Revision petition being meritless deserves dismissal. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 9TH March, 2026. RR RC,J CRP No.731 of 2025 6