APHC010285912024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: 1. K.C.REDDEPPA NAIDU., THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, K.C.REDDEPPA NAIDU.S/O.R.REDDEAIH NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.8 17/1,PADMAVATHIPURAM,TIRUPATHI HOLDI PLOT NO.8, ANNAMAIAH CIRCLE,TIRUPAHI, CHITTOOR(TIRUPATHI)DISTRICT 1. ANUPATI SHILPA, W/O LATE SRI A.KALESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,OCC. HOUSE WIFE (P1), 2. ANUPATI NAVYASHREE SAI, D/O LATE A.KALESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, OCC.STUDENT MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THE NEXT FRIEND. NATURAL GUARDIAN, MOTHER THE 1ST PETITIONER HEREIN SMT A.SHILPA (P2) BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF D.NO.5 PENUKONDA,ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. A VENKATARAMANA NAIDU, S/O YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO. 18 NAGAR, TIRUPATI TOWN, TIRUPATI URBAN MANDAL, CHITTOOR (TIRUPATI) DISTRICT (R.1). IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1484/2024 K.C.REDDEPPA NAIDU., THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, K.C.REDDEPPA NAIDU.S/O.R.REDDEAIH NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.8 17/1,PADMAVATHIPURAM,TIRUPATHI HOLDING HIS OFFICE AT PLOT NO.8, ANNAMAIAH CIRCLE,TIRUPAHI, CHITTOOR(TIRUPATHI)DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND ANUPATI SHILPA, W/O LATE SRI A.KALESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,OCC. HOUSE WIFE (P1), ANUPATI NAVYASHREE SAI, D/O LATE A.KALESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, OCC.STUDENT MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THE NEXT FRIEND. NATURAL GUARDIAN, MOTHER THE 1ST PETITIONER HEREIN SMT A.SHILPA (P2) BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF D.NO.5-139,SHIVA SAI MANDIR, PENUKONDA,ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. A VENKATARAMANA NAIDU, S/O NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO. 18-8-14A, MADHURA NAGAR, TIRUPATI TOWN, TIRUPATI URBAN MANDAL, CHITTOOR (TIRUPATI) DISTRICT (R.1). IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI K.C.REDDEPPA NAIDU., THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, K.C.REDDEPPA NAIDU.S/O.R.REDDEAIH NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.8- NG HIS OFFICE AT PLOT NO.8, ANNAMAIAH CIRCLE,TIRUPAHI, ...PETITIONER ANUPATI SHILPA, W/O LATE SRI A.KALESHWAR, AGED ABOUT ANUPATI NAVYASHREE SAI, D/O LATE A.KALESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, OCC.STUDENT MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THE NEXT FRIEND. NATURAL GUARDIAN, MOTHER THE 1ST PETITIONER HEREIN SMT A.SHILPA (P2) BOTH ARE RESIDENT 139,SHIVA SAI MANDIR, NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 67 14A, MADHURA NAGAR, TIRUPATI TOWN, TIRUPATI URBAN MANDAL, 2 4. S SATHYANARAYANA, , S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,OCC. BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.19-3-29, TIRUCHANUR ROAD, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR ( TIRUPATI) DISTRICT (R2). 5. D LAKSHMINARAYANA, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,OCC. BUSINESS, R/O.D. NO.4-78, USMAN NAGAR, RAJAMPET MANDAL,KADAPA(ANNAMAYYA)DISTRICT(R3). 6. B SREENIVASULU, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,OCC. BUSINESS, R/O D. NO.20-128, B-CROSS, RAM NAGAR COLONY,CHITTOOR(R4). 7. M/S VENKATESWARA HOUSING PVT LTD, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR KARANAM LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, S/O.KONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YERARS. HOLDING ITS OFFICE AT D.NO.11-1-73, SRI BALAJI HOUSE,STATION ROAD, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT,NOW R/O. FLAT NO. 101, SUGUNA ARCADE,OOP. TO KRISHNA NAGAR PARK, GUNTUR-2 (R5). 8. B VENKATA NAGASRJUNA, S/O.BOJJA NAGARAJU NAIDU, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.162, BALAJI NAGAR, TIRUPATI TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR (TIRUPATI) DISTRICT (R7). 9. B REVANTH, S/O BOJJA NAGARAJU NAIDU, AGE NOT KNOWN,OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.162, BALAJI NAGAR, TIRUPATI TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR (TIRUPATI) DISTRICT (R8). 10. TENKAYALA DAMODHARAM, S/O T.MUNIKRISHNAJAH, AGE NOT KNOWN,OCC. BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.8-139/1, ROYAL NAGAR, M.R.PALLI,TIRUPATI-2, TIRUPATI URBAN MANDAL, CHITTOOR (TIRUPATI) DISTRICT. (R9). 11. DEGALA BHUPATHI, S/O LATE D. GANGAIAH, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O. FLAT NO.102, KESAR RESIDENCY APARTMENT, G-BLOCK, SAHEKAR NAGAR, BANGALORE NORTH, KARNATAKA STATE(RIO). 12. SHAIK RAFI KISHOR, S/O. SHAIK MUJAFAR, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O.MUNIRAJA FORM, NO.18, M.M.RERSIDENCY, G-2 HOUSE, J.P. NAGAR, PUTTANAHALLI, 3 BAGALORE-560078(R11). 13. T BHANUPRIYA, W/O R.MUNI YUGANDHAR BABU, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. PLOT.NO.49, NATARAJA LAYOUT, 7TH PHAASE,J.P.NAGAR,BANGALORE SOUTH. BANGALORE CITY(R12). 14. T VENUGOPAL, S/O TENKAYALA DAMODHARAM, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O.S.V.PURAM VILLAGE, VADAMALAPETA MANDAL, CHITTOOR (TIRUPATI) DISTRICT. (R13 15. B RAJU, S/O B. BALAPULLANNA, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.8-71, ROYAL NAGAR, MUTHYALAREDDI PALLITIRUPATI-2, TIRUPATI URBAN MANDAL, CHITTOOR (TIRUPATI) DISTRICT (R14). 16. NANDYALA SHYAMALA, W/O LATE N.NAGARAJU, AGE NOT KNOWN,OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O.D.NO.4-103, SAI NAGAR, NEAR KESAVAYANA GUNTA, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, CHITTOOR (TIRUPATI) DISTRICT (R15). 17. G KOTESWARA RAO, S/O G. NAGESWARA RAO AND KUSUMA KUMARI, W/O. G.KOTESWARA RAO, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.19-3-38A,BEHIND MINERVA GRAND HOTEL, OLD RENIGUNTA ROAD, TIRUPATI TOWN, TIRUPATI URBAN MANDAL, CHITTOOR (TIRUPATI) DISTRICT(R16). 18. KOLLAPANENI MUNISEKHAR, S/O K.RAMACHANDRA NAIDU, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.10-13-541, REDDY AND COLONY, TIRUPATI TOWN, TIRUPATI MANDAL, CHITTOOR (TIRUPATI) DISTRICT (R17). 19. M RAVIKUMAR REDDY, S/O M.JAYARAMI REDDY, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.8-71/1, TUDA PLOTS, MUTHYALAREDDY PALLI,TIRUPATI-2 (R18). 20. J KAVITHA, W/O JAYA GANESH, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O.D.NO.31/38, ABISAR COLONY, 2ND STREET, MEHTA NAGAR, AMINIJIKARAI, CHENNAI CITY, TAMIL NADU STATE(R19). 21. K RATHNA, W/O K.RADHAPATHI NAIDU, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O.D.NO.20-3-53E1 ,SIVAJYOTHI NAGAR, 4 ERRAMITTA, TIRUPATI (R20) 22. K GAYATRI, W/O JYOTHI KUMAR, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O.D.NO.4-31, KRISHNA NAGAR, MUTHYALAREDDI PALLI, TIRUPATI-2 TIRUPATI URBAN MANDAL, CHITTOOR(TIRUPATI) DISTRICT. (R21) 23. V KRISHNAM NAIDU, S/O V.MARKONDA NAIDU, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.22-1132-2, SBI COLONY, KONGAREDDY PALLI, CHITTOOR(R22). 24. D SUBRAMANIAN, S/O DURAI SWAMY NAIDU AND A.VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O D.SUBRAMANIAN, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.1-61A, V.O.C. STREET, VENKATESHAN NAGAR, OPPO 19TH STREET, VENKATESHAN NAGAR, JAWAHAR NAGAR, CHENNAI CITY, TAMIL NADU(R23). 25. KRISHNI BHASKAR RAO, S/O GOVINDAPPA, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.16, MULLAL STREET, KADHAN NAGAR, TIRUTTANI, TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU STATE 26. K G RAHUL BHARATHM, S/O K.GURUMURTHY, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.23, ANNA STREET, GANDHI NAGAR, ARAKONAM, JYOUTHI NAGAR, VELLORE DISTRICT, TAMIL NASDU STATE(R25). 27. T JYOTHI KUMAR, S/O T.BOJJA REDDY, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.4-31. SRI KRISHNA NAGAR, MUTHYALAREDDI PALLI, TIRUPATI-2(R26). 28. V PAVAN KUMAR, S/O V.KRISHNAMA NAIDU, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.22-1132/2, SBI COLONY, KONGAREDDI PALLI,CHITTOOR TOWN AND URBAN MANDAL, CHITTOOR (TIRUPATI) DISTRICT (R27). 29. P BHASKAR RAO, S/O P.RAMAKOTAIAH, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO. 18-3-52/301, KHADHI COLONY, SHANTHI NAGAR, TIRUPATI TOWN AND URBAN MANDAL, CHITTOOR (TIRUPATI) DISTRICT (R28). 30. TANUKU JANADAKSHI, W/O T.LAKSHMIPATHI, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC.HOUSE WIFE, R/O.D.NO.42/342-11, BHAGYA NAGAR 5 COLONY, NEAR AMBEDKAR BHAVAN, KADAPA TOWN, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT (R29). 31. P BALASUBRAMANYAM REDDY, S/O P.CHENCHU REDDY, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.1-73, GOLLAPALLI (V AND P), TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, CHITTOOR (TIRUPATI) DISTRICT (R30). 32. SURYA DEVARA NIRMALA KUMARI, W/O AMIRINENI NAGESWARA RAO, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC.HOUSE WIFE, R/O.D.NO.3-1-89, VIDYA NAGAR COLONY, PERURU POST,TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, CHITTOOR ( TIRUPATI )DISTRICT (R31). 33. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA, S/O SHAIK BADE SAHEB, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.42-199, NGO COLONY, KADAPA TOWN DISTRICT(R32). 34. MALEPATI ASWARTHA NAIDU, S/O M.NARAIAH NAIDU, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.2-725, T.SUNDUPALLI V AND M, PINCHA ROAD, CHITTOOR (TIRUPATI) DISTRICT (R33). 35. MALEPATI RAVINDRA NAIDU, S/O MALEPATI ASWARTHA NAIDU, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.2-8/3, SREENIVASAPURAM, TIRUCHANUR ROAD,TIRUPATI (R34). 36. MALEPATI SURESH BABU NAIDU, S/O MALEPATI ASWARTHA NAIDU, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.13-6- 600/44/99. PEDDAKAPU LAYOUT, TIRUIPATI TOWN AND URBAN (M), CHITTOOR (TIRUPATI) DISTRICT (R35). 37. P RAGHURAMA RAJU, S/O P.VENKATA RAJU, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O.FLAT NO. 44, GAJALAKSHMI NAGAR, TANAPALLI ROAD, TIRUPATI(R36). 38. MALEPATI ARUN KUMAR, S/O MALEPATI ASWARTHA NAIDU, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.13-6-600/44/172, PEDDAKAPU LAYOUT, TIRUPATI TOWN AND URBAN (M),TIRUPATI DISTRICT (R37). 39. AMIRINENI NAGESWARA RAO, S/O A. NARASIMHAM, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.3-1-89, VIDYA NAGAR COLONY, PERURU POST, TIRUPATI RURAL AND MANDAL, 6 CHITTOOR (TIRUPATI) DISTRICT (R38). 40. MALEPATI BHASKAR NAIDU, S/O MALEPATI ASWARTHA NAIDU, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.2-8/3, SRINIVASAPURAM, TIRUCHANUR ROAD,TIRUPARTI RURAL (M), CHITTOOR (TIRUPATI) DISTRICT (R39). 41. B RAVINDRA KUMAR, S/O B.GOVINDA SWAMY, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC.BUSINESS, PEROLA IL 616141 SAB ELL N 5502 USA (R40). 42. BATTALA GAYATRI, W/O S.RAGHAVA, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC.HOUSE WIFE, R/O.D.NO.13-5-528, THATHA NAGAR, TIRUPATI TOWN. (R41). 43. SMT ANUPATI SUBAMMA, W/O A.SUBBARAYUDU, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC.HOUSE WIFE, R/O.D.NO.2-142-1, MARUTHI NAGAR, KADAPA TOWN AND DISTRICT. (R42). (RESPONDENTS 3 TO 43 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES TO THIS CRP) ...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 dated.25-04-2024 passed in E.A.No.428 OF 2023 in E.A.No.71 OF 2017 in E.A.No.116 OF 2016 in O.E.P.No.9 OF 2015 in O.S.No.59 OF 2015 passed by the by the III Additional District Judge,Tirupathi and allow the E.A.No. 468 of 2023, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the E.A.No.71 OF 2017 in E.A.No.116 OF 2016 in O.E.P.No.9 OF 2015 in O.S.No.59 OF 2015 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tirupathi pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CHALLA SIVASANKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. C SRINIVASA BABA 7 The Court made the following order Challenging the order dated 25.04.2024 passed in E.A. No.428 of 2023 in E.A No.71 of 2017 in E.A. No.116 of 2016 in Original Execution Petition No.9 of 2015 in Original Suit No.59 of 2015 on the file of the Court of III Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/respondent No.6 under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’). 2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, being the plaintiffs, filed O.S.No.59 of 2015 for Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale and the said suit was decreed ex parte in their favour. Pursuant to the said decree, they filed E.P.No.09 of 2015 seeking execution and registration of sale deed through Court. The said Execution Petition was allowed and accordingly a registered sale deed was executed in favour of respondent No.1 through the process of the Court. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed Execution Application No.116 of 2016 for delivery of possession. In execution of the said order, possession of the property was delivered to respondent No.1 through due process of law. At this juncture, respondent No.1, being the original purchaser, alienated the plaint schedule property in favour of respondent Nos.7 to 41 by executing registered sale deeds and delivered possession of their respective plots. Subsequently, a claim petition in E.A.No.71 of 2017 under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC came to be filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the execution proceedings. In the meanwhile, the petitioner herein, who remained ex parte 8 in the suit as well as the Execution proceedings, filed Execution Application No.428 of 2023 seeking to set aside the ex parte order with a delay of 1133 days. The said Execution Application was dismissed under its order dated 25.04.2024 by the learned III Additional District Judge, Tirupati holding that if the application was to be allowed, the rights that had accrued to the respondents pursuant to the decree passed by this Court would result in revival of a stale litigation causing undue hardship and that third party interests created under registered sale deeds might also be affected. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri Challa Siva Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.Tagore Yadav, learned counsel, representing Sri C.Srinivas Baba, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit filed along with the petition and the grounds urged in the revision, contended that the subject property itself is seriously disputed between the parties and that the Court below ought to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to prove his case on merits. The Court below failed to see that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the application was allowed, as the sale deed had already been executed in favour of the agreement holders by virtue of decree dated 02.05.2015. He further submits that the said decree was also passed ex parte against the 9 petitioner without service of summons in the suit. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition. 5. On the other hand, Sri Takoor, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 contends that petitioner herein was only a GPA holder and that his GPA was cancelled by the original land owners on 16.07.2009. Despite cancellation of the GPA, the petitioner allegedly executed an Agreement of sale in favour of third parties on 27.08.2009. He further contends that the original landowners executed a registered sale deed in favour of the husband of respondent No.1 and that respondent Nos.1 and 2 became the absolute owners. Knowing fully well that the GPA stood cancelled, the petitioner is stated to have entered into agreement of sale with respondent No.3 pursuant to which a collusive suit was filed and an ex parte decree came to be passed within a short span of 15 days from the date of filing of suit. He further contends that only after filing the EP and the application for delivery of possession, the petitioner initiated proceedings by filing E.A.No.71 of 2017 under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC. When the said proceedings had progressed and valuable rights had accrued in favour of respondents, the petitioner, after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 1133 days, filed the present Execution Application seeking to set aside the ex parte order passed against him. He further contends that even after excluding the period covered by the COVID pandemic, substantial delay remains unexplained. He further contends that 10 the petitioner has not raised any valid grounds warranting interference of this Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Revision Petition. 6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The material on record discloses that one Sri A.Venkataramana Naidu i.e., respondent No.3 herein filed O.S.No.59 of 2015 on the file of the Court of III Additional District Judge, Tirupati against the petitioner herein (GPA holder) for Specific Performance basing on agreement of sale. The said suit was decreed in favour of respondent No.3 directing execution of a registered sale deed. As the petitioner failed to comply with the decree, O.E.P. No.9 of 2015 was filed and the Court executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.3. Thereafter, Execution Application No.116 of 2016 was filed seeking delivery of possession, and possession of the schedule property was delivered. Subsequently, respondent No.3 alienated the petition schedule property in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 by way of registered sale deeds. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, claiming to be the bona fide purchasers under registered sale deeds, filed E.A. No.71 of 2017 under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC. In the said proceedings, though the petitioner engaged counsel, he neither filed a counter nor appeared and hence, he was set ex parte on 23.03.2018. The petitioner thereafter filed E.A. No.428 of 2023 seeking to set aside the ex parte order, with a delay of 1133 days. The said application was opposed by the contesting respondents by filing counters. 11 8. On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone delay, this Court finds that no satisfactory or cogent explanation has been given for the inordinate delay of 1133 days. Even after giving due consideration to the period affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, the delay remains substantially unexplained. However, the Court below did not dismiss the application solely on the ground of delay and took into consideration the facts that the petitioner had remained ex parte in the main suit as well as in execution proceedings, delivery of possession of the EP schedule property had already been effected and the claim petition in E.A. No.71 of 2017 had reached the stage of arguments by both sides. 9. The Court below, upon careful scrutiny of the pleadings, the objections of the contesting respondents and the legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court regarding condonation of inordinate delay held that permitting the petitioner to reopen the matter at such a belated stage would amount to revival of stale litigation, causing undue hardship. The Court below further observed that allowing application would prejudice to the rights and interests of third parties. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no valid ground raised by the petitioner warranting interference with the said order and further, there is no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the Court below, as such, this Court is inclined to dismiss the Revision Petition. 12 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 09.02.2026 MP 13 463 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1484 of 2024 Dated 09.02.2026 MP