APHC010469782022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1963/2022 Between: 1.BOMMAREDDI VEERA SUDHEER REDDY, S/O GUNESWARA RAO @ GUNESWARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, HINDU, MALE, CULTIVATION, RIO D.NO.3-114, MAIN ROAD, GOPALAPURAM VILLAGE, GOPALAPURAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.NALLAMILLI SUBBA REDDY, S/o. Late Venkata Reddy, Aged about 44 years, Hindu, Male, Business in Construction Work, R/o Lorven Heights, Flat No.502, Gopal Nagar Puntha Road, Narayanapuram, Rajamahendravaram, Esat Godavari District. ...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 pleased topleased to allow the present Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the Decree and Order dt.18.7.2022 in I.A.No.193 of 2021 in I.A.No.661 of 2017 in O.S,No.40 of 2017 passed by the Trial Court- DC Additional District Judge court, West Godavari District at Kowur in the interests of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 pleased to pass an interim order by way of Attachment of A and B schedule properties shown under I.A.No.661 of 2017 in O.S.No.40 of 2017 on the file of the IX Additional District Judge Court, West Godavari District at Kovvur basing on the Lok Adalat Award dt.8.9.2018 in Lok Adalat Case No.380 of 2018 passed by the Lok Adalat Bench at Kowur pending disposal of the main Civil Revision Petition on the file of this Hon'ble Court in the interests of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.CHANDRA SEKHAR ILAPAKURTI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. -- The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1963 OF 2022 ORDER : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.07.2022 passed in IA.No.193 of 2021, in IA No. 661 of 2017, in OS No. 40 of 2017 by the learned IX Additional District Judge, Kovvur. 2. The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of money and, along with the suit, the petitioner filed IA.No.661 of 2017 seeking attachment of the suit schedule property. While the suit was pending, the parties were referred to Lok Adalat as they intended to resolve the dispute amicably. As per the terms of settlement arrived at, the defendant agreed to pay Rs.35,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of the claim within a period of eight months from the date of the award. It was also agreed that, in the event the defendant failed to pay the said amount, the plaintiff would be at liberty to recover the entire suit amount of Rs.35,77,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the award till the date of realization, along with costs. The attachment made in IA No.661 of 2017 was made absolute. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner had filed IA.No.193 of 2021 in IA.No.661 of 2017 in OS.No.40 of 2017 as the learned Judge while recording the compromise arrived at before the Lok Adalat, the learned Judge erroneously recorded that the IA.No.661 of 2017 was dismissed as infructuous on the ground that the attachment stands raised after six months. It is submitted that the learned Judge 3 erroneously recorded in the docket order that the attachment shall stand raised after six months. 4. It is also submitted that there was no such observation in the award and the learned Judge erred in recording the same in the docket order. In order to get the mistake rectified, the petitioner filed IA.No.193 of 2021 seeking rectification of the erroneous docket order. The learned Judge dismissed the said interlocutory application on the ground that he had no power to modify his own order and that only clerical or arithmetical mistakes can be corrected as per Section 152 of Code of Civil Procedure and the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure could not be considered and, on these grounds, the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 5. This Court ordered notice on the respondent. The notice sent to the respondent was unserved as the addressee was not located. Therefore, this Court, by order dated 01.12.2025, directed publication in a local newspaper. The said order has been complied with and a copy of publication has been placed before this Court. Even, today, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. Thus service of notice on respondent is sufficient. 6. Considering the same, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent is not interested in pursuing the Civil Revision Petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the respondent has not complied with the terms of settlement and that the award passed by the 4 Lok Adalat has not been complied with by the respondent. When the award passed by the Lok Adalat had, in clear and categorical terms, made the attachment in IA No. 661 of 2017 dated 20.06.2017 absolute, the learned Judge ought not to have interpreted a plain and unambiguous order in a different manner and closed IA.No.661 of 2017 as infructuous. 7. Considering the submissions, the order dated 18.07.2022 passed in IA.No.193 of 2021 in IA No. 661 of 2017 in OS No. 40 of 2017 by the learned IX Additional District Judge, Kovvur is hereby set aside and IA.No.661 of 2017 in OS.No.40 of 2017 on the file of IX Additional District Judge, Kovvur is restored to file. The attachment shall be continued. It is left open for the petitioner to take all steps for recovery of the outstanding amount. 8. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N KGM 5 184 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1963 OF 2022 Dated 09.03.2026 KGM