APHC010128742026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Tuesday, the fifth day of May two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.839 of Between: 1. Smt. A. Subbamma 2. A.Nidimamidi Reddy 3. A.Niranjan, S/o. late A.Govindappa, aged about 30 years and 1. Smt. K. Neeraja, W/o. Mohan Babu, aged about 30 years 2. D.Nirmala, W/o. Doddla Seena, aged about 30 years 3. Smt. M. Sai Leela, village, C.K. Palli Mandal, Anantapur district Counsel for the petitioners: 1. S.Krishna Reddy Counsel for the respondents: None The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the fifth day of May two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.839 of 2026 Smt. A. Subbamma, W/o. late Govindappa, aged about 70 years 2. A.Nidimamidi Reddy, S/o. late A.Govindappa, aged about 50 years S/o. late A.Govindappa, aged about 30 years …Petitioners W/o. Mohan Babu, aged about 30 years W/o. Doddla Seena, aged about 30 years. W/o. M.Surya Prakash, R/o. Nagasamudram village, C.K. Palli Mandal, Anantapur district. ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: S.Krishna Reddy Counsel for the respondents: The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Tuesday, the fifth day of May two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi late Govindappa, aged about 70 years. late A.Govindappa, aged about 50 years. S/o. late A.Govindappa, aged about 30 years. …Petitioners W/o. Mohan Babu, aged about 30 years. Nagasamudram ...Respondents 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.839 of 2026 ORDER: This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the order, dated 07.11.2025, in I.A. No. 73 of 2025 in I.A. No. 544 of 2023 in O.S. No. 72 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Penukonda, Ananthapuramu district. 2. I.As. Nos. 543 of 2023 and 544 of 2023 were filed in O.S. No. 72 of 2015. As can be seen from the docket order, dated 31.12.2025, it was recorded that I.A. No. 543 of 2023 was dismissed as not pressed. In pending I.A. No. 544 of 2023, the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 / the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 filed I.A. No. 73 of 2025 under Section 151 C.P.C. to restore the order, dated 22.07.2024, in I.A. No. 544 of 2023 and permit the petitioners to contest I.A. No. 544 of 2023. The petitioners sated that on 30.08.2024, I.A.No.544 of 2023 stood posted for filing counter, but due to mistake, the petitioners could not approach their advocate to instruct him to file counter and therefore, the advocate could not prepare counter. They further stated that however, they were present before the Court on that day and had requested an adjournment, however, the Court had refused to grant any more time and posted the petition for hearing without setting the respondents ex parte. Therefore, the petitioners filed I.A. No. 73 of 2025 along with their counter in I.A. No. 544 of 2023. 3. The petition in I.A. No. 73 of 2025 was opposed by the respondent / D.Hr. 4. After hearing the petitioners and the contesting respondent No.1, the trial Court dismissed the petition observing that the reason stated for not filing counter is false. 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.839 of 2026 5. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners. 7. In the counter, the revision petitioners / defendants raised the following grounds:- (i) The petitioner obtained preliminary decree, dated 07.12.2017, by playing fraud on the Court and without knowledge of the respondents. (ii) The petitioner is not entitled to get 1/6th share in the petition schedule properties. All the petition schedule properties are self acquired properties of the respondent No.1. Hence, none of the respondents or the petitioner is entitled to a share in any of the petition schedule properties. (iii) The respondent No.1, by her hard labour, constructed the item No.2 of the petition schedule houses. She gifted item No.2 of the schedule houses under two registered gift deeds, dated 17.06.2022 in the name of the respondent No.2 and another registered gift deed, dated 22.01.2022 in favour of the respondent No.3 and inducted them into possession of the respondents Nos.2 and 3. (iv) At present, the respondents Nos.2 & 3 are in actual physical possession of the item No.2 of the petition schedule houses. But, under the guise of the ex parte preliminary decree, the petitioner is seeking final decree. 8. As can be seen from the proposed counter said to be filed by the petitioners, there is not even a single sustainable ground that can be 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.839 of 2026 raised in a final decree petition as the grounds stated are supposed to be taken in the suit or in appeal, but not in the final decree petition. 9. Nextly, this Court does not see any irregularity or illegality in the observation of the trial Court in dismissing the petition. However, it is made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to participate in the further proceedings in I.A. No. 73 of 2025 in I.A.No.544 of 2023. 10. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.05.05.2026 RAR