1 APHC010614342025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3151/2025 Between: 1. SRI BARRI NANDI RAJU,, S/O SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, MALE, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O DR. NO. 34-25, VENNAPU VARI PALEM, ACHANTA SIVARU, ACHANTA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI KUSUME VENKATESWARA RAO, S/o Narasimha Murty, Aged about 45 years, Male, Occ Private Employee, R/o Bhimalapuram, Achanta Mandal, West Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SINGAMSETTY V.M. SANKAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. MEDAPATI SANTOSH REDDY The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3151 of 2025 ORDER: This revision is filed aggrieved by the orders dated 13.10.2025 in E.P.No.48 of 2024 in O.S.No.41 of 2017 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division ), Narsapur. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The petitioner is the defendant/judgment debtor and he filed E.A.No.157 of 2025 in E.P.No.48 of 2024 in O.S.No.41 of 2017 to set aside the orders passed in E.P.No.48 of 2024 in O.S.No.41 of 2017. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no reasons have assigned while dismissing E.A.No.157 of 2025 and the docket order is a simpliciter and no reasons have assigned and no opportunity has been granted to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that in fact the respondent obtained decree and despite granting several opportunities, the petitioner herein/ judgment debtor has not cooperated and even he has initially 3 refused to receive the notices in E.P. and despite granting several opportunities, the petitioner/judgment debtor did not appear. Left with no option, the E.P. has been allowed by the executing Court. In E.A.No.157 of 2025 also it was clearly mentioned that non- appearance of the petitioner to proceed with the E.P. Hence, left with no option, the executing Court has rightly dismissed the E.A. filed by the petitioner and only to protract the litigation, the petitioner/judgment debtor has filed the present E.A. 6. In the docket order dated 13.10.2025 in E.P.No.48 of 2024 in O.S.No.41 of 2017, it was clearly mentioned as follows: “Petitioner is called absent. No representation. Costs not paid. Petitioner is not ready for enquiry since several adjournments even on costs. It shows the petitioner does not evincing any interest to proceed the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed.” 7. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the orders passed by the executing Court in E.A.No.157 of 2025 and also the docket order dated 13.10.2025, this Court is not inclined to entertain the revision. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 27.01.2026 Ivd 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3151 of 2025 Dated: 27.01.2026 Ivd