Date of reserved for orders : --- Date of pronouncement : 06.07.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010192052023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE 6th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1246/2023 Between: 1. MARISA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. LATE. VENKATA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RUNNING TEA STALL, R/AT SIVARAM ROAD, CHEEPURUPALLI ( V AND M ), VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2. NAMBURI. RAMANAMMA, W/O. RAMAKRISHNA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/IN CHEEPURUPALLI (VAND M ), VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 3. MARISA SATYAVATHI., ( DIED ). ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. RAGHUMAHANTHI MANIRAJU KUMARI, W/O. KANNARAO JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/AT JAGANNADHARAJU COLONY, CHEEPURUPALLI ( V AND M ), VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2. RAGHUMAHANTHI KANNARAO JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, S/O. LATE. VYKUNTA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RETD. FACOR EMPLOYEE, R/AT JAGANNADHARAJU COLONY, CHEEPURUPALLI ( V AND M ), VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 3. SALURU TEJYALAKSHMI, ( DIED ). ...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 to aggrieved by the impugned Decree and Order dtd. 27-12-2022 passed in I.A. 827/2022 in O.S. No. 14/2017, on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Cheepurapalli, Vizianagaram District, IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 Stay all further proceedings in the suit O.S. 24 / 2016, on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Chepurapalli, Vizianagaram district and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. B M PATRO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri B.M. Patro, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sailendra, learned counsel representing Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. 2. The plaintiffs in the suit O.S.No.14 of 2017 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Cheepurupalli filed this civil revision petition (hereinafter referred to as ‘revision’) against the order dated 27.12.2022 in I.A.No.827 of 2022. 3. The revision petitioners/plaintiffs instituted suit O.S.No.14 of 2017 seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants. After closure of the plaintiffs’ evidence, the suit was posted to 31.10.2022 for judgment. At that juncture, defendant No.2 filed I.A.No.827 of 2022 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) to reopen the suit, to receive a petition filed by the other defendants under Order IX Rule 7 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte order dated 02.08.2022, passed against them. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was pleaded that defendant No.1 had been looking after the case and she died on 08.12.2021 due to COVID-19. Since the defendants did not file a written statement, they were set ex parte on 02.08.2022, and the matter was posted to 31.10.2022, for judgment. Immediately, an application is filed seeking the relief mentioned supra. 5. The plaintiffs filed a counter, opposing the application. 6. The trial Court, by order dated 27.12.2022, allowed the petition on costs of Rs.500/-, against which the plaintiffs filed the present revision. 7. The point for consideration is whether the order, dated 27.12.2022, in I.A.No.827 of 2022 in O.S.No.14 of 2017 suffers from any illegality or perversity, warranting interference by this Court? 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the defendants failed to avail the opportunity to file a written statement, though the suit underwent several adjournments and the defendants’ right to file a written statement was forfeited. The plaintiff filed interlocutory applications seeking amendment, and the same were allowed. P.W.1 was examined on 02.09.2022, and Exs.A1 and A2 were marked, and P.W.2 was examined on 08.09.2022. Thereafter, the suit was posted for judgment on 31.10.2022. The defendants did not assign proper reasons. However, the trial Court, without considering the same, allowed the application. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the order of the trial Court. 10. As seen from the record, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking a perpetual injunction against the defendants in the year 2017. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, and the suit was posted to 31.10.2022, for judgment. At that juncture, defendant No.2 filed the aforementioned application. 11. The reason assigned by the defendants is that defendant No.1, who was looking after the suit, died on 08.12.2021 due to Covid-19 and after her death, the aforementioned interlocutory application was filed. The trial Court considered this aspect and allowed the petition and awarded costs of Rs.500/-, to meet the ends of justice. 12. Since the trial Court exercised the jurisdiction vested in it and allowed the I.A. on payment of costs, and the same does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality, the order under revision brooks no interference. This Court does not find any merit in this revision, and hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. The learned trial court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible as per the circular ROC No.560/OP/Cell/2022, dated 23.11.2022, of this high court. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 07.07.2026 IKN Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No