1 (RNT,J & PKC,J W.A. NO.21 OF 2026) APHC010006632026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3601] MONDAY, THE 20th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI WRIT APPEAL NO: 21/2026 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.12.2025 and the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 23.08.2025 and pass Between: 1. G ADINARAYANA REDDY, S/O. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED 56 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 5-9, DALAVAYAPALLI VILLAGE, H/O. KODIKONDA, CHILAMATHUR MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 2. GUVALAPALLI PADMAVATHI,, W/O. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, AGED 55 YEARS, RIO. D.NO. 5/1, DALAVAYAPALLI VILLAGE, H/O. KODIKONDA, CHILAMATHUR MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522238 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATYASAI DISTRICT AT PUTTAPARTHI. 515134 2 (RNT,J & PKC,J W.A. NO.21 OF 2026) 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PENUKONDA REVENUE DIVISION, SRI SATYASAI DISTRICT. 515134 4. THE TAHASILDAR, CHILAMATHUR MANDAL, SRI SATYASAI DISTRICT. 515134 5. D BASAVA RAJU, , S/O. VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O. KODIKONDA VILLAGE, CHILAMATHUR MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 515134 6. D SIVA KUMAR, S/O. MUDDU VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O. R/O. KODIKONDA VILLAGE, CHILAMATHUR MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 515134 7. D M CHANDRASEKHAR, S/O. MUDDA VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RIO. KODIKONDA VILLAGE, CHILAMATH UR MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 515134 ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 DISPENSE WITH the filing of the certified copy of the docket order dated 24.12.2025 passed by the learned single judge in W.P.No. 35875/2025, and pass IA NO: 2 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 suspend the impugned .order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 23.08.2025 and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. NAVULURU KRISHNA SAI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 (RNT,J & PKC,J W.A. NO.21 OF 2026) JUDGMENT:-(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) This Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the writ petitioner in the pending W.P.No.35875 of 2025, being aggrieved by the order dated 24.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, which reads as follows: “The learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to take out personal notice to respondents 5 to 7 through registered post with acknowledgment due and file proof of service in the Registry. List the matter after Pongal Vacation, 2026.” 2. Learned counsel for the appellant was heard on the question of maintainability of the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to satisfy this Court as to how the aforesaid order answers the description of a "judgment" within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent so as to be amenable to an intra-Court appeal. 4. A plain reading of the impugned order would show that it is purely an interlocutory and procedural order whereby permission has been granted to the writ petitioner to take out personal notice to respondent Nos.5 to 7 through registered post with acknowledgment due and to file proof of service in the Registry. No right of the parties 4 (RNT,J & PKC,J W.A. NO.21 OF 2026) has been adjudicated, nor has any issue affecting the merits of the writ petition been determined by the learned Single Judge. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that an application seeking interim relief is also pending in the writ petition. Merely because the learned Single Judge did not pass any order on the said application on the date when the impugned order came to be passed, it cannot be construed as a rejection of the interim application. The impugned order does not expressly or impliedly reject the application for interim relief. The interim application continues to remain pending for consideration by the learned Single Judge. 6. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the impugned order does not constitute a "judgment" within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and, consequently, no intra-Court appeal would lie against such an order. 7. In view thereof, the Writ Appeal is not maintainable and is, dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J 5 (RNT,J & PKC,J W.A. NO.21 OF 2026) _____________________________________ PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI, J Date :20.07.2026. RPD. 6 (RNT,J & PKC,J W.A. NO.21 OF 2026) 80 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI (DISMISSED) WRIT APPEAL NO: 21 of 2026 Date : 20.07.2026 RPD. 7 (RNT,J & PKC,J W.A. NO.21 OF 2026)