Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 24156 (AP)

NALLAM VENKATA SURESH v. YEDLAPALLI BUTCHIBABI

CRP/2385/2025 · 2026-01-20

D Ramesh

Original Suitbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010474202025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2385/2025 Between: 1. NALLAM VENKATA SURESH, S/O GOVINDA RAO AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 70-15-17/1, ROAD NO.52, SURESH NAGAR, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. YEDLAPALLI BUTCHIBABI, S/o Venkataratnam, Aged about 70 years, Occ. Business, R/o D.No. 13-38/1, Sadanalavari Street, Attili Village and Mandal, East 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 to set aside the Order dt.12-08-2025 passed in E.A.No.24 of 2024 in E.P.No.94 of 2022 in O.S.No.189 of 2019 and to 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 grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Order passed in E.A.No.24 of 2024 in E.P.No.94 of 2022 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku, West Godavari District pending disposal of the above C.R.P. and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M L NEELIMA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: Petitioner/D.Hr in E.A.No.24/2024 in E.P.No.94/2022 in O.S.No.189/2019 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku, West Godavari District filed the above revision against the docket order dated 12.8.2025. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the D.Hr in the above said E.P. Pending suit, the schedule 1 to 3 properties are attached. Now for execution of the Decree, the petitioner herein filed Execution Petition and the same is numbered as E.P.No.94/2022 and in that the petitioner has filed E.A.No.24/2024 under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Sec.151 CPC for amendment of E.P.schedule i.e. to incorporate boundaries of items 1 and 2 schedule lands and deleting item no.3 from the E.P schedule and the same was partly allowed i.e. the request to alter or incorporate boundaries for items 1 and 2 in the E.P schedule is dismissed and the other one is allowed. Hence the Revision. 3. Though this court permitted the petitioner to serve notices to the respondent, respondent declined to receive the notice. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that, the petitioner has got decree in the year 2019, but the same could not be executed for non-cooperation of the J.Dr/respondent and for bringing the schedule property for sale, the boundaries are required to be mentioned. But when the boundaries are 3 not fixed, the petitioner has no option except to approach the concerned Court. Accordingly, he has filed the Execution Application vide E.A.No.24/2024 in the E.P and the executing Court without mentioning any reason refused to incorporate the boundaries of items 1 and 2. 5. When the J.Dr intentionally avoiding the Court, the Court should not reject the claim of the D.Hr on technical grounds. When once the D.Hr is entitled for execution and that to for non-cooperation of the J.Dr, it is boundan duty of the Courts for execution of the decree by the D.Hr. 6. In view of the same, the impugned order dated 12.8.2025 passed in E.A.No.24/2024 in E.P.No.94/2022 in O.S.No.189/2019 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku, West Godavari District is set aside remanding the matter to the same Court with a direction to consider the Execution Application once again and pass appropriate orders and to see the execution of the Decree in proper manner. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH 21.01.2026 RD 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2385 OF 2025 21.01.2026 RD