APHC010724372025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 158/2026 Between: 1. JAMI APPA RAO, S/O LATE JAGGAYYA, AGED 68 YEARS, RETIRED EMPLOYEE, D.NO. 8-33, L. KOTA VILLAGE AND MANDAL VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. JAMI SATYAM DIED, (DIED) 2. JAMI PYDIRAJU, W/O. LATE SATYAM, AGED 71 YEARS, R/O. JAMI VEEDHI, LAKKAVARAPUKOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 3. JAMI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. JAMI SATYAM, AGED 47 YEARS, R/O. JAMI STREET, LAKKAVARAPUKOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, PRESENT RESIDING AT H.NO.44/18, CHUCHUHIYAPARA, NEAR ANNAPURNA COLONY, BILASPUR, CHATTISGARGH. 4. JAMI JAGANADHA RAO, S/O. JAMI SATYAM, AGED 42 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 10-93/6, FIRST FLOOR F2, GREEN GARDEN, NEAR VICTORY PUBLIC SCHOOL, PENDURTHI, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 5. VENNU VARALAKSHMI, W/O. VENNU APPALA NARAYANA, AGED 56 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D. NO.27-197/2, LAKSHMI NARASIMHA NAGAR, APPENNAPALEM, PENDURTHI, 2 VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 6. BURLI SAROJINI, W/O. LATE SATYANARAYANA, AGED 47 YEARS, R/O. CHINNA STREET, JONNAVALASA, JAGANNADHAPURAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toBeing aggrieved by the Order dt. 17.09.2025 passed in I.A. No. 282 of 2025 in A.S. No.78 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Learned Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram, 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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in A.S. No.78 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Learned Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram, pending disposal of the main CRP and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. V V SATISH The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.158 OF 2026 ORDER: The respondent No.1 herein filed O.S.No.180 of 2005 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa, for partition of the plaint schedule property into two equal shares and for delivery of possession of one such share to the plaintiff and for costs of the suit. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 31.03.2018. Against the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff preferred appeal vide A.S.No.78 of 2018 before the learned Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram. While the appeal is pending, the sole plaintiff died and an application was filed to bring the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff on record with a delay of 1188 days to set aside the abatement order of the Court passed on 28.03.2019. The said application was allowed by the lower appellate Court by order dated 17.09.2025. 2. The said order has been assailed in the present civil revision petition on the ground that the respondents herein earlier filed an application for condonation of delay and the same was dismissed by the Court and it operates as res judicata. Without considering the same, condoning the huge delay of 1188 days is bad in law, as no reasons were assigned. The respondents have not explained day to day delay. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for plaintiffs/respondents admitted and stated that earlier an application was filed for condonation of delay and 4 the same was dismissed. However, it does not operate as res judicata, as no reasons have been assigned and requested this Court to take a lenient view. 4. The learned trial Court allowed the petition condoning the delay of 1188 days assigning reason that the respondents/appellants are not the residents of the village due to the employment. As the earlier order dismissing the application for condonation of delay was not decided on merits, the principle of res judicata does not apply; the said application was dismissed only for failure to file an application to set aside the abatement along with the condonation delay petition. 5. The delay petition that was filed essentially not on account of negligence on the part of the respondents/appellants as the appeal is against dismissal of suit for partition, the delay needs to be condoned. There is no injustice if the other side can be compensated by costs. As the learned judge assigned valid reasons for condonation of delay, this Court does not see any merit in the present civil revision petition. For exercising the application belatedly, the respondents shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (in words ten thousand only) to the petitioner herein with a period of two weeks from date of this order. Failing to pay the said amount, within this stipulated time, the respondents cannot seek any further extension of time, and it shall be deemed the civil revision petition stand allowed. 5 6. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. The High Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction, only if there is patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or an error apparent on the face of the record or where there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. In revisional jurisdiction, the High Court cannot substitute its opinion with that of the trial Court. 7. The appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal expeditiously not later than a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 8. With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 27.02.2026 KBN 6 109 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.158 of 2026 Date: 27.02.2026 KBN