APHC010722822025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] SATURDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 95 OF 2026 & 149 OF 2026 CRP NO.95 OF 2026 Between: 1. KOKKANTI VIJAYA BHASKARA REDDY, S/O. KOKKANTI NAGA RAJA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION AND CONTRACTOR, R/O. Y. KOTHAPALLI, SIMHADRIPURAM MANDAL, (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS T. KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE IN THE SUIT), YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER A N D 1. RACHAMALLU KIRAN KUMAR REDDY, S/o. R. Siva Shankar Reddy, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o.D.No.2/227, Dorasanipalle Village, Proddatur Town YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh ...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 allow this CRP by setting aside the docket order dated 21-11-2025 passed in I.A.No.619 of 2025 in I.A. No. 615 of 2025 in CS. No. 57 of 2025 passed by the Hon’ble VI Addl. District Judge, Kadapa and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 suspend the docket order dated 21-11-2025 passed in I.A. No. 619 of 2025 in I.A. No. 615 of 2025 in OS. No. 57 of 2025, passed by the Hon’ble VI Addl. District Judge, Kadapa pending disposal of the above CRP and pass SRK, J CRP Nos.95 & 149 of 2026 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V NITESH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. G SEKHAR REDDY CRP NO.149 OF 2026: Between: 1. KOKKANTI VIJAY BHASKAR REDDY, S/O. KOKKANTI NAGA RAJA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION AND CONTRACTOR, R/O. Y. KOTHAPALLI, SIMHADRIPURAM MANDAL, (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS T. KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE IN THE SUIT), YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER A N D 1. RACHAMALLU KIRAN KUMAR REDDY, S/o. R. Siva Shankar Reddy, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Business, R/o.D. No. 2/227, Dorasanipalle Village, Proddatur Town YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh ...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 allow this CRP by setting aside the docket order dated 21-11-2025 passed in l.A.No.615 of 2025 in OS. No. 57 of 2025 passed by the Hon’ble VI Addl. District Judge, Kadapa and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 suspend the docket order dated 21-11-2025 passed in I.A. No. 615 of 2025 in OS. No. 57 of 2025, passed by the Hon’ble VI Addl. District Judge, Kadapa pending disposal of the above CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V NITESH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. G SEKHAR REDDY The Court made the following: SRK, J CRP Nos.95 & 149 of 2026 3 C O M M O N O R D E R: Heard Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioner/ plaintiff and Sri G.Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant in both the Revision Petitions. 2. Since the parties, the contentions and the rival contentions, and the point involved, in both the Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of, by this Common Order. 3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff, and the respondent herein is the defendant, in the suit. For sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed in the suit. 4. Civil Revision Petition No.95 of 2026 arises out of the Order, dated 21.11.2025 passed in I.A.No.619 of 2025 in I.A.No.615 of 2025 in O.S.No.57 of 2025 by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the trial Court’), wherein and whereunder, the trial Court allowed the petition filed to accept the security furnished by the defendant for the satisfaction of the suit amount pursuant to the Order dated 14.11.2025 in I.A.No.615 of 2025. 5. Civil Revision Petition No.149 of 2026 arises out of the Order, dated 21.11.2025 passed in I.A.No.615 of 2025 in SRK, J CRP Nos.95 & 149 of 2026 4 O.S.No.57 of 2025 by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa, wherein and whereunder, the trial Court suspended the order of attachment before judgment passed in the application until further orders. 6. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.57 of 2025 against the defendant for recovery of suit amount of Rs.50,57,250/- due by the defendant to the plaintiff under a promissory note dated 27.10.2025 executed in his favour for a sum of Rs.33,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and for costs. While the suit is pending, the plaintiff filed an application in the said suit vide I.A.No.615 of 2025 under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC seeking direction to the defendant to provide security or to attach the immovable property mentioned in the schedule of the petition situated in Survey No.127-B1 for an extent of Ac.3.11 cents, Survey No.133-B for an extent of Ac.2.00 cents and Survey No.134-B for an extent of Ac.2.18 cents of Proddatur Village and Mandal, Kadapa, belonging to the defendant, before the judgment. The trial Court vide Order dated 14.11.2025 in I.A.No.615 of 2025 issued show-cause notice to the defendant to furnish security or to show cause as to why schedule immovable property shall not be attached before judgment and provided 72 hours’ time therefor, from the date of receipt of the SRK, J CRP Nos.95 & 149 of 2026 5 show-cause notice. Pursuant to the same, the defendant filed I.A.No.619 of 2025 in I.A.No.615 of 2025, under Section 94 (e) read with Section 151 of CPC and furnished security of the immovable property, mentioned as ‘B’ schedule in the said petition i.e. S.No.236/B to an extent of Ac.0.68 cents or 0.272 hectors out of Ac.1.04 cents of Somulavaripalli Panchayat, Rameswara Village, Proddatur Mandal, Kadapa, towards satisfaction of the suit amount, and prayed the trial Court to release the immovable property mentioned in I.A.No.615 of 2025 from attachment (mentioned as ‘A’ schedule property in I.A.No.619 of 2025). 7. The trial Court vide Order 21.11.2025 passed the following order in I.A.No.619 of 2025 in I.A.No.615 of 2025: “Heard. Perused the record. Satisfied the averments in the petition. Hence, this petition is allowed. Consequently, the trial Court vide Order dated 21.11.2025 passed the following Order in I.A.No.615 of 2025: “The respondent/defendant filed petition under Section 94 (e) read with 151 of CPC in I.A.No.619 of 2025 for furnishing third party security. The respondent filed original registered sale deed dated 18.09.2018, E.C. Dated 20.11.2025 and Market Value Certificate dated 20.11.2025 stands in the name of Ankireddipalli Konda Reddy, S/o.Pulla Reddy by produce for security. As per petitioner version, orally submitted that attachment is not yet effected. SRK, J CRP Nos.95 & 149 of 2026 6 In the meanwhile, suspended the attachment till further orders. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present Revision Petitions came to be filed. 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff would contend that the actual market value of ‘B’ schedule immovable property mentioned in I.A.No.619 of 2025 furnished as security is only Rs.15,30,000/-, but the defendant misrepresented the said schedule agricultural land as residential land and submitted a fabricated and inflated Market Value Certificate showing its value as Rs.1,11,90,080/-. The learned counsel further contends that the Market Value mentioned in the Market Value Certificates issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar-I of Proddatur and the Joint Registrar-II, Proddatur differ with each other, but the trial Court without going into veracity of those certificates and without even providing an opportunity to the plaintiff, mechanically accepted the security furnished by the defendant in respect of B schedule immovable property mentioned in I.A.No.619 of 2025 and suspended the order of attachment before judgment passed in the application until further orders. 9. Learned counsel for the defendant would contend that the value of the property mentioned in ‘B’ schedule is SRK, J CRP Nos.95 & 149 of 2026 7 Rs.1,11,90,080/- but not Rs.15,30,000/-, and it belongs to Ankireddypalli Konda Reddy, a distant relative of defendant. The learned counsel would further contend that the trial Court afforded opportunity at the time of adjudicating the application filed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC, but the plaintiff with a view to grab the property mentioned as ‘A’ schedule in I.A.No.619 of 2025, whose value is higher than the property mentioned as ‘B’ schedule in the said IA, moved the present Revision Petitions with an ulterior motive. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the Revision Petitions. 10. Perused the material available on record. 11. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that the trial Court issued show-cause notice to the defendant in I.A.No.615 of 2025 in O.S.No.57 of 2025 directing the defendant to furnish security for a sum of Rs.50,57,250/- within 72 hours from the time of its receipt, with a direction that if the defendant fails to do so, to attach the schedule property mentioned in the said I.A.No.615 of 2025 (mentioned as ‘A’ schedule property), before judgment and keep the same under safe and secure custody until further orders of the Court. The property which is sought to be attached by the plaintiff in I.A.No.615 of 2025 is mentioned as under: SRK, J CRP Nos.95 & 149 of 2026 8 Schedule Kadapa District, Proddatur Sub-District, Proddatur Sub-Registrar, Proddatur Mandal, Proddatur village fields, Survey No.127-B1 for an extent of Ac.3.11 cents, Survey No.1.33-B for an extent of Ac.2.00 cents and Survey No.134-B for an extent of Ac.2.18 cents as bounded by: Boundaries of Survey No.127-B1 are as follows: North : Land in Survey No.127 of Pothireddy Muralinatha Reddy South : Vundela Gurivireddy sold land to Municipality East : Public Rastha West : Nallaballe Venkata Subbanna, Balabugari Obula Reddy land Market Value is Rs.2,55,02,000/- as per Market Value Certificate dated 03.11.2025 in Survey No.127-B1. Boundaries of Survey No.133-B & 134-B are as follows: North : S.Venkata Subba Reddy, N.Sreenivasulu land South : Land of V.Rajya Lakshmi East : Babaiah & D.Venkata Subbaiah land West : Rastha Market value is Rs.93,74,000/- as per Market Value Certificate dated 03.11.2025 in Survey No.134-B. 12. Pursuant to the said order, the defendant furnished the security in respect of the property mentioned as ‘B’ schedule in I.A.No.619 of 2025 and filed petition to accept the same and prayed the trial Court to release the immovable property mentioned in I.A.No.615 of 2025 from attachment, which is allowed by the trial Court. SRK, J CRP Nos.95 & 149 of 2026 9 13. The main contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that there is much variation in the market value mentioned in the Market Value Certificate dated 20.11.2025 issued by the Joint Sub Registrar-II, Proddatur and the market value mentioned in the Market Value Certificate dated 25.11.2025 issued by the Joint Sub Registrar-I, Proddatur, in respect of the same property. 14. This Court perused the Market Value Certificates, dated 20.11.2025 and 25.11.2025 issued by the Joint Sub Registrar-II and the Joint Sub Registrar-I, respectively, of Proddatur. Apparently, there is much variation in the market value mentioned in the Market Value Certificates issued by the aforesaid two authorities in regard to market value of ‘B’ schedule immovable property mentioned in I.A.No.619 of 2025. Therefore, it is desirable to decide as to the market value mentioned in which of the documents has to be relied upon. In view of the same, having regard to the facts and circumstances, this Court feels it appropriate to direct the learned VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa to ascertain the veracity of the market values mentioned in the Market Value Certificate dated 20.11.2025 issued by the Joint Sub Registrar-II, Proddatur and the market value mentioned in the Market Value Certificate dated 25.11.2025 issued by the SRK, J CRP Nos.95 & 149 of 2026 10 Joint Sub Registrar-I, Proddatur, in respect of ‘B’ schedule immovable property mentioned in I.A.No.615 of 2025, is said to be correct. 15. At this stage, learned counsel for the defendant submits that ‘A’ schedule immovable property mentioned in I.A.No.619 of 2025, there are two items viz., Item No.1 - Survey No.127-B1 to an extent of Ac.3.11 cents; item No.2 – an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in S.No.133-B and an extent of Ac.2.13 cents in Survey No.134-B and that Market Value of property in item No.1 is of Rs.2,55,02,000/- and Market Value of property in item No.2 is of Rs.93,74,000/- and there is no dispute in this regard. He further submits that even if the subject suit is decreed, the value of the property in item No.2 would suffice to meet the decretal amount and hence, he seeks permission to alienate the property in item No.1 of the schedule. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as this Court came to conclusion that the impugned orders are liable to be set-aside, directing the trial Court to pass appropriate orders, the defendant is at liberty to file application before the trial Court ventilating his aforesaid grievance, which shall be considered in accordance with law. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned Orders in both the Civil Revision Petitions are set-aside. The SRK, J CRP Nos.95 & 149 of 2026 11 learned VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa is directed to ascertain the veracity of the market values mentioned in the Market Value Certificate dated 20.11.2025 issued by the Joint Sub Registrar-II, Proddatur and the market value mentioned in the Market Value Certificate dated 25.11.2025 issued by the Joint Sub Registrar-I, Proddatur, in respect of ‘B’ schedule immovable property mentioned in I.A.No.615 of 2025 and pass appropriate reasonable orders within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of the order after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 17. Accordingly, with the above direction, Civil Revision Petition Nos.95 of 2026 and 149 of 2026 are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these CRPs shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 31st January, 2026. DNB