1 APHC010347182026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] TUESDAY, THE 14th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1875/2026 Between: 1. KALAKOTI SIVA KESA VARDHAN REDDY, S/O. MOHAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. BADIRAJU PALEM, TOTLA VALLURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P.- 521163. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KALAKOTI MOHAN REDDY, S/o. K. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, Aged about 68 years, R/o. D. No. 4-24, Kunderu Post, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District, A.P.-521245 ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DR D VENKATA RAMANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 2 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1875 OF 2026 ORDER: Heard Sri K.Praveen Krishna Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.505 of 2013 filed for partition of the plaint schedule property, which was decreed on 23.02.2015 against the defendant/respondent for preliminary decree. 3. The defendant filed the appeal being A.S.No.200 of 2015, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 05.07.2022 by the learned VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. The defendant(appellant) filed I.A.No.536 of 2022 under Order 41 Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘C.P.C’) for setting aside the order of dismissal in default. That application has been allowed by order dated 31.01.2025. The plaintiff/petitioner filed I.A.No.1241 of 2025 for review of the said order, which has been rejected on 01.05.2026. 4 Challenging the order passed in the review petition, the present C.R.P under Section 115 C.P.C has been filed by the plaintiff. 4. By order dated 31.01.2025, the learned VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, has allowed I.A.No.536 of 2022, being satisfied with the reasons given in the affidavit in support of I.A.No.536 of 2022. The reason assigned was that the wrong date was noted as the next date as 25.07.2022. The review application, I.A.No.1241 of 2025 was also rejected on the ground that there was no error apparent on the face of the record. The learned court held that under the garb of review, the matter could not be reopened for fresh hearing. The matter cannot be reheard and reargued. It recorded that non- acceptance of the contentions of the review petitioner(the present petitioner) does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the order of allowing the application filed under Order 41 Rule 19 C.PC, no reasons have been recorded by the court. He submits that in the absence of the reasons recorded, the order cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down in M/s.Kranti 5 Associates Pvt. Ltd and another v. Sh.Masood Ahmed Khan and others1. 6. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. 7. The order dated 31.01.2025 is not under challenge in the present Civil Revision Petition. 8. Additionally, the learned court has recorded that the petition was allowed for the reasons given in the petition/affidavit. The reason given was noting of the wrong date. The court being satisfied with that reason had allowed the application under Order 41 Rule 19 C.P.C. So the Court has recorded satisfaction in the order dated 31.01.2025 referring to the ground of absence taken in the affidavit. It cannot be said that the order dated 31.01.2025 is without reasons. 9. So far as the impugned order dated 01.05.2026 passed in the review petition is concerned, the learned court did not find any error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 31.01.2025. 1 Civil Appeal No....of 2010 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.20428 of 2007) and SLP(C) 12766 of 2008 dated 08.09.2010 6 10. It is well settled in law that under the garb of the review jurisdiction, a party cannot be permitted to reopen the matter for fresh arguments. Once, the court was not satisfied with the contention of the plaintiff/petitioner, it could not be a case for review. The Review applicant cannot maintain review petition to agitate the same ground that the contentions advanced when the order under review was passed, was correct and should have been accepted. Any apparent error could not be shown. The court is justified in rejecting the review petition. 11. The learned Court has only restored the appeal, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on an application filed within the period of limitation on being satisfied with the cause of absence shown. The order advances the cause of justice. It provides opportunity of hearing. The appeal is a valuable right. The suit is for partition. The petitioner will have the right to contest the appeal on merits. No prejudice, illegality or irregularity is reflected from the order. 12. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date: 14.07.2026. Pab 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1875 OF 2026 DATE: 14.07.2026 Pab