1 APHC010533172016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3606] THURSDAY, THE 16th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI Review I.A.No.2 of 2016 in CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1025/2016 Between: P S Raju, W.g.dist ...PETITIONER AND Pericharla Rama Raju Hyderabad Anr and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. 1125/V S R ANJANEYALU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 14094/BS KARTIK & PRASAD ESR 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI Review I.A.No.2 of 2016 in CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1025 of 2016 ORDER: The petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition by challenging the order dated 04.12.2015 in I.A.No.1019 of 2015 in O.S.No.129 of 2014, before the Trial Court. The erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh has allowed this Civil Revision Petition by an Order, dated 07.04.2016. 2. Aggrieved by the same, the review petitioner has filed the present Review application for setting aside the said Order dated 07.04.2016. 3. Learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the suit pending before the Trial Court has been dismissed and the present Civil Revision Petition has become infructuous. 4. Heard. 5. The record shows that the revision was preferred against the impugned order of the trial Court, wherein the petition filed to implead the parties was allowed. Thereafter, the defendant in the said suit preferred revision. This Court has allowed the revision and dismissed the application before the trial Court. Against the same, the review was preferred. During pendency of the 3 review petition, the review petitioner has stated that the suit itself was disposed of by dismissing the same. In such a case, when the suit is not pending on the file of the trial Court, the review of the order in the civil revision petition, wherein this Court allowed the revision dismissing the application before the trial Court impleading the party, do not relevant. The review of the order requires no consideration. 6. Recording the same, the present Review Petition I.A.No.2 of 2016 is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI, J Dated: 16.07.2026 BSM